Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-04 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, December 04, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM   Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491 ) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.   CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS   1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2 375 Hamilton Avenue [25PLN-00277]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Six-Story Parking Garage with a Total of 266 Parking Spaces on the Existing Surface-Level Parking Lot D. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). CEQA Status: Not a Project. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3606 El Camino Real [24PLN-00162]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Multiple Commercial and Residential Buildings Located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue, and Construction of a Seven-Story, Multi-Family Residential Housing Development Project with 321 Units, Thirteen Percent of Which Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: Eligibility Under AB 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66) is Being Evaluated. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, and RM-40. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2025 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2025 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2025 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT   OTHER INFORMATION The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and available for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. A.Public Comments   PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 4, 2025 Report #: 2511-5480 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: ARB meeting schedule Upcoming ARB agenda items Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change. December 18, 2025 3781 El Camino Real: Builder’s Remedy The following project was submitted since the last ARB meeting. 788 San Antonio 25PLN-00294 Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning to allow the deconstruction of two existing commercial buildings and the merging of lots 788 and 796 San Antonio Road to form an 0.99-acre site. The project will include a 167-unit mixed-use building with 25 affordable housing units. 1,545 square feet of retail space is proposed on the ground floor. The building is designed as an eight- story building with 74 parking spaces on the ground and second floors. Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: 2026 Tentative Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment C: Pending ARB Projects : ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 4 9 3 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock & Jojarth 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8/28/2025 8:30 AM 12:00PM Hybrid In Person Regular Special 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 3/20 – Adcock & Rosenberg July August September October November December 7/17 – Chen & Hirsch 8/7 -Chen & Rosenberg 9/4 – Chen & Hirsch Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     DRAFT Architectural Review Board 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 9 2 9 3 Tentative 2026 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/7/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/21/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/4/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/18/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/6/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/20/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment B - 2026 Tentative Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 8     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Pending ARB Projects The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250 Hamilton Ave Bridge Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. On-hold for redesign Major Architectural Review Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN-00341 24PLN-00239 660 University 680 University Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi- Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non- residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR. ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 ARB recommended approval 4/22 Revised Plans Submitted 6/23 PC Amendment 8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El Camino Way Commercial 16 convalescent units Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, ARB 10/17/24, PTC & Council hearings Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/24 24PLN-00100 24PLN-00223 (Map) 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Deemed Complete 12/22/24 Supplementary info req. ARB 10/2 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San Antonio Housing – 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7- story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) ARB 8/7 Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00161 24PLN-00048 (SB 330) 3781 El Camino Real Housing – 177 units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 4/3/25 Supplementary info req. Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 10     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00162 24PLN-00047 (SB 330) 3606 El Camino Real Housing – 335 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40 NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 12/25/24 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/24 24PLN-00184 24PLN-00232 (Map) 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 231 units & Hotel – 92 rooms Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various (SB330) NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997 Fabian Way Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 & 3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295 multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low- income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111) NOI sent 1/16/25 Resubmittal 1/31/25 NOI Sent 2/21/25 Master Sign Program 11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340 Portage Av Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). NOI sent 1/09/25 Resubmittal 3/27/25 ARB 5/15 rec. to continue ARB 10/2 Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Minor Architectural Review 12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the exterior and interior remodel of the existing Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the exterior of the building include the removal of the mansard roof, installation of new parapets, new finishes and branding panels. No increase in building footprint. NOI sent 1/22/25 Resubmittal 2/21/25 NOI sent 3/26/25 ARB 8/21 Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit 12/8/24 24PLN-00356 24PLN-00357 (Map) 2100 Geng Rd Housing – 137 Units Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. NOI sent 1/24/25 Resubmittal on 4/16/25 NOI sent 5/22/25 Resubmittal on 7/25 ARB 10/16 Planned Home Rezoning 9/10/25 25PLN-00225 808 San Antonio Housing 175 units Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning to allow the merging of lots 800 and 808 San Antonio Road, to form an 0.88-acre site. The Project will be a 175-unit residential building with 26 BMR units. The project will include 2,294 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor. The building is designed as an 8-story building with two levels of subterranean construction. The project also includes an interior courtyard, exterior courtyard, and roof deck. Item 1 Attachment C - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 12 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 4, 2025 Report #: 2510-5376 TITLE 375 Hamilton Avenue [25PLN-00277]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Six-Story Parking Garage with a Total of 266 Parking Spaces on the Existing Surface-Level Parking Lot D. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). CEQA Status: Not a Project. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject application is a request for Preliminary Architectural Review for a proposed six- story parking garage with 266 parking spaces at 375 Hamilton Avenue (Capital Improvement Project PE-15007), which is currently in use as a public surface parking lot (Lot D). The proposed project location is provided in Attachment A. The project description is provided in Attachment D and conceptual plans are provided in Attachment E. No formal action or direction is provided to the applicant at this time, and Board Members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Development Services Department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code, comprehensive plan, and other policy documents. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes and policies, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant with an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the ARB and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with City policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project team. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 12 BACKGROUND 526, circa 1928, Category 2, 2-story building, vacant; 550-552, circa 1952, 1-story Ethel’s Fancy restaurant; 558-560, 2-story circa 1938, Tai Pan ground floor restaurant, and second office space; 425-555 Hamilton Ave, circa 1966 , All Saints Episcopal Church; 352-364 University Avenue, circa 1948, 2-story with CVS ground floor retail and second floor office space; 510 Waverley Street, circa 1900, 2-story, GF retail, office on the upper floor; 345 Hamilton Avenue, circa 1979, 4-story plus basement AT&T building (31,610 sf); Nearby sites zoned PF and CD- C(GF)(P); 380 Hamilton Ave, Post Office, circa 1932, PF zone. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 12 Aerial View of Property: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation:Regional Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria:Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design Guide: The project is within the Hamilton Avenue District as Described in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Document1 Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150’):Not within 150 feet of residential uses or districts Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards 1 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp- development-services/downtownurbdesguidelines_all.pdf Source: Google Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 12 Yes Yes Yes Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Review and Action The Downtown Parking Garage project was first introduced in the City Council’s 2014 Infrastructure Plan as part of the City’s broader effort to improve downtown parking availability. Between 2017 and 2018, Watry Design, Inc. (Watry) completed the preliminary design and environmental review for a six-level parking structure on Lot D (Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street). The City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the planning application in February 2019. Shortly thereafter, the project was placed on hold to allow further evaluation of alternative parking management strategies.3 A timeline and history of the previous application and recent discussions is available online.4 However a brief summary of Council’s previous actions as well as the various boards and the Planning and Transportation Commission’s feedback on the previously approved project is provided for informational purposes: December 12, 2016: Council directed cost and impacts analysis and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review. The Council staff report is viewable here. April 11, 2017: Council provided directions on legislative approach. Council meeting minutes are viewable here. May 31, 2017: PTC Scoping Meeting. The staff report is viewable here. The video of the Council meeting is viewable here. August 24, 2017: HRB Study Session. The staff report is viewable here. The video of the HRB meeting is viewable here. HRB meeting minutes are viewable here September 7, 2017: ARB Study Session. The staff report viewable here. February 15, 2018: ARB hearing to review the project plans and hear public testimony regarding the Draft EIR. The staff report is viewable here. June 21, 2018: ARB hearing to consider the Draft EIR published May 18, 2018, and provide comments on the proposed design. The staff report is viewable here. 3 City Council, February 11, 2019; SR #9263 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=80584 4 Parking Garage Timeline and History is available online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/downtowngarage Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 12 February 11, 2019: Council certified the Final EIR and Approved a Record of Land Use Action (RULA) Approving Architectural Review Application 17PLN-00360. The Council staff report is viewable here. Council Review of Current Design In December 2023, the Council directed staff to resume work on the Downtown Parking Garage project, with a new goal of integrating it with future affordable housing development on the site.7 This direction aligns with the City’s 2023–2031 Housing Element,8 specifically Program 1.4, which targets the creation of 290 affordable housing units through the redevelopment of up to six City-owned surface parking lots. The Housing Element requires that any redevelopment of these lots include replacement of public parking to maintain downtown access. Additionally, the City is currently proposing redevelopment of Lot T, which contains 52 parking spaces, which would be displaced by a proposed seven-story, 80-unit affordable housing project. To offset the parking loss, Council considered using the new Downtown Parking Garage as replacement capacity. To advance an approach for a new parking garage that offsets the current site parking, Lot T public parking, and that accommodates future housing, the Council authorized a contract with Watry in December 2024 for design, environmental review, and construction administration services for the new parking garage.9 The contract directed Watry to develop preliminary design options that would both maximize parking and accommodate a future residential component, supporting the City’s housing and economic development objectives. Staff from Public Works Engineering, Watry, and Alta Housing reviewed these conceptual options and presented several options, along with recommendations to Council. On April 14, 2025, Council directed staff to proceed with Option 1a, a new 274-space parking garage, featuring six levels of above-ground parking with a reserved area to allow for future construction of affordable housing on the site with separate access on Waverley Street. Preliminary construction cost estimates for the garage portion ranged from $20–24 million, with Option 1a estimated at $23.1 million and providing a net addition of approximately 111 public parking stalls after accounting for Lot T’s parking loss. Project Description The proposed conceptual plans presented in Attachment E include a six-story parking garage with 266 parking spaces, and a space for future affordable housing along Waverley Street, consistent with direction from Council to pursue Option 1a10 as presented at the April 14, 2025 7 City Council, December 11, 2023; Item #8; SR #2309-2043 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82569 8 Housing Element, Chapter 5, page 5-9: https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo- Alto-Housing-Element.pdf 9 City Council, December 2, 2024, SR#2410-3609 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=6518 10 April 14, 2025, Council hearing staff report and attachments; see action item No.11, Attachment A: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16036 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 12 hearing.15 The proposed parking structure replaces 86 existing public parking spaces provided on a surface parking lot at the site. The total parking count also accommodates 52 parking spaces that are currently proposed to be removed from the Lot T parking lot, for a net new increase of 128 parking spaces. Twenty-five of these spaces are intended to serve the future affordable housing use. The total number of parking spaces provided in these conceptual plans has slightly decreased by eight total spaces in comparison to the options presented to Council based on refinements to the design to comply with various regulations. Because the project does not include the future housing component, a temporary public plaza would be located east of the Parking Garage in the space for the future affordable housing project as part of the proposed design. Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.070 (PAMC). AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Notwithstanding, the Director may instead forward a project directly to City Council for final action in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.170. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. The findings for a decision on this project would be provided when a formal application is filed and returned to the ARB. Development Standards Exception per PAMC 18.28.060 (e) allow for an increased floor area ratio, building height, as well as reduced setbacks, to accommodate public parking garages within the Downtown District. DISCUSSION Scale and mass Transitions in scale to adjacent properties Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context Pedestrian-orientation and design 15 April 14, 2025, Council hearing is viewable here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu1S6T1pNCw Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 12 Access to the site Consideration of any applicable policy documents (Background Section) Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines17 The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Regional/Community Commercial. This designation is intended for larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University Avenue/Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. The proposed parking garage replaces existing surface parking lot within the downtown area. This net increase in parking capacity supports several key Comprehensive Plan goals related to mobility, economic vitality, and land use efficiency, including: Mobility (Policy T-3.1 and T-3.4): Expanding parking supply in the downtown core enhances access for residents, visitors, and employees, and supports the City’s transportation management and parking efficiency goals. Business and Economic Vitality (Goal B-1): Improved downtown parking availability supports local businesses by facilitating customer access and sustaining the economic health of the Downtown area. Land Use (Goal L-1 and Policy L-2.5): The project efficiently utilizes publicly owned land to accommodate both public parking and future housing, aligning with the City’s strategy to integrate civic and residential uses within the downtown. Housing Element (Program 1.4): By incorporating provisions for a future affordable housing component, the project supports the City’s broader objective to create new affordable housing opportunities on City-owned sites while maintaining replacement parking. Housing Element The proposed garage is designed to accommodate a future residential building to the east, ensuring that the site contributes to a cohesive urban block and supports the long-term vision for downtown livability. Although the project does not include construction of an affordable housing project, the project has specifically been designed to accommodate this future use, consistent with Housing Element Program 1.4, which targets the creation of 290 affordable housing units through the redevelopment of up to six City-owned surface parking lots. Additionally, this site is designated as a Housing Inventory Site with a projected capacity of 44 units, 22 of which are identified for low income and 22 of which are identified for very-low income. 17 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/4/planning-amp-development-services/3.-comprehensive- plan/comprehensive-plan/full-comp-plan-2030_with-dec19_22-amendments.pdf Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 12 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines The project is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Design Guidelines, within the Hamilton Avenue District. The Hamilton Avenue District Goals include: Promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed-use district, which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic, and institutional buildings. Maintain Hamilton Avenue as a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity which naturally results from the provision of transit service and convenient surface parking. Key guidelines within the plan relevant to the proposed project include providing pedestrian links from Hamilton Avenue to University Avenue in conjunction with development of the alleys and parking lots. They also recommended “strong building volume” and “opportunity for pedestrian friendly use” at this corner. The conceptual plans appear to be consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines in that the project reinforces the established urban character, promotes pedestrian activity, and generally provides a cohesive relationship with the surrounding downtown context. The six- story structure replaces an existing surface parking lot with a more efficient land use that supports both public parking and future affordable housing. The design incorporates articulated façades, high-quality materials, and screening elements to break up massing and enhance visual interest, consistent with the guidelines’ emphasis on human scale and architectural quality. At the street level, the project improves the pedestrian experience through widened sidewalks, active ground-level elements, and landscaping/trees along Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street consistent with the Hamilton Avenue District goals. Until the future housing is developed, the inclusion of a temporary public plaza east of the garage further contributes to downtown’s public realm, aligning with the City’s vision for an accessible, vibrant, and well- designed urban environment. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 12 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, page 52 Zoning Consistency Analysis The project site is zoned Public Facility (PF). Allowed uses within this zone district include public facilities and uses owned or leased by the City of Palo Alto. Both the parking garage and any future affordable housing on the site are permitted uses, so long as the site continues to be owned or leased by the City would be permitted. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the PF Zone District Development Standards is included in Attachment C. As detailed in the attachment, the proposed plans exceed the allowable height, floor area, and setbacks, including a seven-foot special setback on Hamilton Avenue. However, in accordance with 18.28.060(e), on sites within the Downtown district where the primary use is a parking garage, Council may modify the development standards and setbacks lines established by a special setback map to achieve community objectives. The code states that these exceptions shall be included in the review of the applicable development review process. Therefore, the request for increased height and floor area as well as reduced setbacks would be proposed as a requested exception in accordance with the code as part of any formal application. Multi-Modal Transportation Vehicular ingress and egress are proposed along Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot. The existing Lane 21 will be maintained and enhanced with architectural paving, landscaped planters, and upgraded lighting. Service vehicle access is planned at the north corner and along the side of the property, with electrical and trash rooms strategically located to facilitate efficient operations. This service alley also provides access for neighboring retail uses. However, staff is evaluating whether the proposed trash enclosure is adequately sized to serve both the adjacent uses and the new parking garage. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 12 The proposed separation between the new garage and the building at 560 Waverley Street would create an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway oriented toward the secondary stair and other vertical circulation elements. This pedestrian alley would also provide a visual connection to All Saints Episcopal Church and would be enhanced with architectural paving, landscaping, benches, and decorative lighting. Plan Sheet ARB 3.7 (Attachment E) illustrates the pedestrian access lane along the interior property lines, providing access from the plaza to the parking garage’s secondary stair. Sidewalks along Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street would be widened to create a safer and more inviting pedestrian environment. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 12 Renderings from the Plan Set on Sheet ARB 3.7A Attachment E Although there are currently no bicycle lanes along the project frontage, the proposed 2026 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), which has not yet been adopted, includes a planned Class IV bicycle lane along Hamilton Avenue. The proposed project would result in more vehicles entering and exiting the site on Hamilton Avenue but would also reduce curb cuts on both Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Downtown Parking The Downtown Parking Assessment District in Palo Alto is a designated area that funds and manages downtown parking facilities through assessments on businesses and properties. Businesses within this district can purchase permits for employees for various city-owned garages and lots, and the district also oversees public parking options like street parking, color- coded zones, and paid garages for all visitors. Similarly, the Downtown Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program provides residents with a permit to park on the street for longer durations. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The existing contract with Watry covers the phases of the project design and environmental review work. Funding for this continued design is available in the Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Capital Budget for the New Downtown Parking Garage project (PE-15007). STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 21, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 20, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. As of the writing of this report, no written comments have been received. Verbal comments were provided by Ms. Wong, the property owner at 558-560 Waverley Street, regarding concerns about trash pickup and storage limitations created by the new parking garage. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 2. Page 12 of 12 On February 11, 2019, the City Council of Palo Alto approved Resolution No. 9818 Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Parking Garage Project at 375 Hamilton Avenue, Making Certain Findings Concerning Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, All Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR evaluated a five-above grade level with a one-level basement development with 338 parking spaces. Staff will evaluate the formal application once submitted, to determine whether further environmental analysis is warranted to address the revised design. NEXT STEPS ATTACHMENTS Report Author & Contact Information ARB19 Liaison & Contact Information 19 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     STREET BRYANT STREET HAMILTON A V ENUE GILMAN STREET WAV ERL E Y STR E BRYANT STREET FOREST AVENUE RAM ONA S ET VERLEY STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERS WAVERLEY STREET HAMILTON A LANE 20 EAST LAN LANE 21 CENTENNIAL WALK 101 209 204 206 208 207 205 202 201301 2A5A4A3A 2B3B4B5B 2C3C4C5 Lanning Chateau Chase Bank Post Of f i ce 94301 CPA_Dev Ctr Old Pro Hamilton_ B uilding Nola All Saints_Episcopal Church 365 Bldg C 675 Bldg A Bl 285 300 459 467 540 707 431 345 52 540 310 380 456 533 -539 530-536518-526 31-324 326-338 7-323 335-339 416- 424 352- 364 650 555 315- 325541- 549 535- 539 425 415-419 384-396 436- 452 433- 439 426 558 628 636 340 560 380 646 640 650 643 642 325 664 635 375 345 275 250 661 461 353 355 367 379 375 436 267581555 541 545 300 43 441439 423 405403 383 382 376 370 374 510 526 550 552 432428 400 530 425 555 453 375 Bldg C 654 502 585 443 F 87285 PC-39 PC-4195 3 PF City Hall & PAPD PF R PF CD-C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 0'92' ATTACHMENT A Location Map 375 Hamilton Ave CITYOF PALOALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto kpaulau, 2025-11-10 11:55:46 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Project Location Zoning District Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 25     4 3 2 1 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 375 Hamilton Ave/25PLN-00277 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 26     Page 1 of 2 2 6 3 9 ATTACHMENT C 375 Hamiton Ave, 25PLN-00277 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 29,164 square feet 29,164 square feet PF Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. Minimum Front Yard (Waverley St) (2) 20 feet(2)NA Not clear, but more than 20 feet Rear Yard (next to ATT building) 10 feet(2)NA Not clear, but less than 10 feet Interior Side Yard (at CVS and backing Waverley addressed lots) 10 feet(2)NA 10 feet Special Setback 7 feet on Hamilton Ave NA Not Clear, but less than 7 feet Minimum yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet(2)NA (not abutting 510 Waverley, CD- C(GF(P) may have residential use on upper floor) NA Maximum Site Coverage 30%(3) For parking facilities the maximum site coverage shall be equal to the site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district (CD-C has “not applicable) NA 23,809 square feet (81.6 %) Maximum Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1(3) For parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio shall be equal to the floor area ratio established by the most restrictive adjacent district (CD-C allows 1.0:1 FAR – 100% floor area) NA 115,016 square feet (3.9:1 FAR) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 150 ft of residentially zoned property NA 68 feet to top of the photo voltaic (PV) roof; 59 feet and 11 inches to the railing Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 27     Page 2 of 2 2 6 3 9 Daylight Plane At abutting residential property line, taken at 10 feet and angled in at a slope of 1:2 NA NA Employee Showers NA NA NA Notes (2) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities district shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. See Section 18.28.060(e) for exceptions to these development standards. (3) Provided that, for parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district. See Section 18.28.060(e) for exceptions to these development standards. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Public Facilities* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking To be determined by Director 86 266 Bicycle Parking To be determined by Director 0 48 long term bicycle spaces Loading Space To be determined by Director 0 Not Clear Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 28     watrydesign.com October 06th, 2025 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 375 Hamilton Avenue, Downtown Parking Garage, ARB Preliminary Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is the preliminary ARB submittal package for 375 Hamilton Avenue, the proposed Downtown Parking Garage. The applicant is Watry Design Group, with Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of our client, the City of Palo Alto. This package includes the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the east corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The rear of the site adjoins the ‘Lane 21 alley’. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. Southwest of the property, at 345 Hamilton, is the four-story AT&T central office. Northwest along Waverley are several one and two-story retail buildings, including historic buildings at 526 and 510 Waverley. Across Hamilton to the Southeast is the historic two-story Post Office. Across Waverley to the Northeast is the All Saints Episcopal Church. This site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties. The zone district is PF: Public Facility. This district has no setbacks or maximum site coverage requirements. There is a special setback of seven feet along the Hamilton Avenue property line. There are no existing easements on the site. The site area is 29,164 SF. The site is currently a surface-level parking lot. Arborist Report identifies eight trees on the property, including one protected Coast Live Oak. The occupants of 526, 550 and 560 Waverley travel across this site to access the backs of their buildings and pick up trash and recycling. 2. 2018 GARAGE PROJECT Between 2017 and 2018 the project team met several times with the Architectural Review Board to review a similar parking garage on this site. That design included five-stories + underground parking, had a retail space at Waverley, and didn’t dedicate land for future housing. The garage featured similar design elements and materials as our proposed project. The Architectural Review Board unanimously recommended approval of the garage on July 19th, 2018. 3.PROPOSED PROJECT On April 14, 2025, Council directed staff to proceed with preliminary design and environmental review of a new parking garage, featuring six levels of above-ground parking with a reserved area to allow for future construction of affordable housing. The proposed garage shall extend to the property line at Hamilton. It will stop 46 feet from the property line at Waverley to leave a large pedestrian plaza, the site of future housing. The garage is set back at the 345 Hamilton property line to separate the two structures. ATTACHMENT D Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description     Packet Pg. 29     Project Page 2 of 2 WDI 16-138A Date watrydesign.com At the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, the edge of the garage shall be ten feet back from the property line. This allows openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, allows light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley, and creates a ‘paseo’ to the central stair and elevator. Behind the Waverley retail buildings, the garage shall be sixteen feet from the property line. This allows access to the back sides of the Waverley businesses for egress. The parking garage shall be six stories, including parking at the roof level. Part of roof level will be covered with photovoltaic panels. The height of the structure will be 59’-11” (to the top of rail) and 68’-0” (to the top of PV).The main vehicle entry / exit shall be on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot. The primary stair and elevator core opening into the paseo shall provide access to all levels. A second stair is also provided at the Hamilton corner. The sides of the parking garage shall be substantially open for natural ventilation. Areas for landscaping, including planted areas and green walls, are provided at Hamilton, Waverley and the paseo. New street trees along Hamilton and Waverley shall be coordinated with Palo Alto Urban Forestry. This project will be constructed to accommodate future photovoltaic panels at the roof. This preliminary ARB package includes three design options for the corner plaza and building facades. These options show different locations of a shear wall and different layout of exterior cladding. Façade of the parking garage will also incorporate Amy Landesberg’s work, who was chosen by Palo Alto’s public art department. Art will be developed during the design of the garage. 4. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES This project shall include 266 total parking spaces. These include 7 Non-EV accessible spaces and 3 EV accessible spaces. A total of 42 stalls shall be provided with Electric Vehicle chargers. A long-term bike storage room shall along the paseo, allowing separation of vehicular and bicycle traffic. This room shall be approximately 415 square feet and has space for about 48 bicycles. Short-term bicycle storage can be provided at the sidewalk along Hamilton Avenue. 5. TRASH, COMPOST AND RECYCLING A common refuse storage room shall be at Lane 21. This room shall be approximately 250 square feet. It will serve the Waverley businesses. 6. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS This project shall satisfy requirements for the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code, New Construction. This project shall satisfy requirements for the Palo Alto CalGreen and EnergyStar Ordinance, New Construction and Addition Projects greater than 10,000 square feet. We look forward to staff review and an Architectural Review Board hearing so that we can proceed with the development of this project. Please call us at (650) 365-0600x115 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gordon Knowles Principal Watry Design Inc. Ken Hayes Principal Hayes Group Architects Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant's Project Description     Packet Pg. 30     ATTACHMENT E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Architectural Review Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Scroll down to find “375 Hamilton Ave” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. You will find links to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/375-Hamilton-Ave Item 2 Attachment E - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 31     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 12 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 4, 2025 Report #: 2510-5375 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3606 El Camino Real [24PLN-00162]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Multiple Commercial and Residential Buildings Located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue, and Construction of a Seven-Story, Multi-Family Residential Housing Development Project with 321 Units, Thirteen Percent of Which Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: Eligibility Under AB 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66) is Being Evaluated. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, and RM-40. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and provide initial comments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed residential project includes 321 rental units, thirteen percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households or below, with two levels of above ground parking. The project includes demolition of 38 residential units as well as approximately 12,572 square feet of commercial floor area across seven existing parcels located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue. These parcels would be merged under a separate tentative map application to create a single parcel for the proposed development. The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 on February 15, 2024 (24PLN-00047). Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable standards at the time the compliant SB 330 pre-application was submitted. In addition, the project is considered a “builder’s remedy project” as defined in the recently adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 1893. Accordingly, the project may not be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The project is further afforded numerous protections as detailed below. On September 22, 2025, the applicant requested that the project be considered exempt under AB 130 [Public Resources Code section 21080.66]. AB 130 exempts infill housing projects Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 32     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 12 meeting certain criteria from CEQA and sets strict timelines for City review and decision. The City is evaluating the project’s eligibility for processing in accordance with AB 130. BACKGROUND Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 12 Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Commercial uses West: Service Commercial (CS), Commercial uses East: Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Commercial uses South: Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM- 30), Multi-Family residential uses Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:APN 137-08-088: Service Commercial APN 137-08-016: Service Commercial APN 137-08-079: Service Commercial APN 137-08-080: Neighborhood Commercial APN 137-08-077: Multiple-Family Residential APN 137-08-070: Multiple-Family Residential APN 137-08-081: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning Designation:APN 137-08-088: Service Commercial (CS) APN 137-08-016: Service Commercial (CS) APN 137-08-079: Service Commercial (CS) APN 137-08-080: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) APN 137-08-077: Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-30) APN 137-08-070: High Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-40) APN 137-08-081: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 12 Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area Annual Office Limit SOFA Phase 2 (2003)Housing Incentive Program El Camino Real Focus Area Project Description The proposed exclusively residential project includes 321 rental units, thirteen percent of which would be provided at a rate affordable to low-income households or below. The building would include two levels of below grade parking, ground floor residential amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real. The project would include demolition of the existing uses, including 38 residential units as well as approximately 12,572 square feet of commercial floor area across seven existing parcels located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue. These parcels would be merged under a separate tentative map application to create a single parcel for the proposed development (25PLN-00243). Attachment A includes a location map. Attachment D includes a summary from the applicant asserting their legal rights and Attachment G includes the project plans. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested and is subject to the ARB’s review: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning and Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Notwithstanding, the Director may instead forward a project directly to City Council for final action in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.180. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. The findings for a decision on this project will be provided when the project returns to the ARB in the future for a formal recommendation. The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to the PTC and Council’s purview: Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 12 Vesting Tentative Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative Maps require PTC review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular, Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the PAMC and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. In accordance with Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all entitlements are required to be completed prior to approval of the Vesting Tentative Map. The ARB’s purview of the Major Architectural Review application is limited by the following State laws: Housing Accountability Act (Government Code 65589.5): The project constitutes a “housing development project,” as well as “housing for very low, low, or moderate income households” under the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5(d) states that a city cannot deny such a project or impose conditions of approval that would render it infeasible unless it makes specified findings. Among those findings are: (1) that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City is further limited to only enforcing those objective standards that exist in a zone district or land use designation that allows the density requested. If there are no such zoning districts or general plan designations in the City, then the applicant may identify any City standards that facilitate the project and only those standards shall apply. If the project meets these identified standards, the City cannot impose conditions of approval that preclude the project from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. Because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the “base density” for purposes of State Density Bonus Law shall be the maximum density permitted for builder’s remedy projects (e.g. three times the density permitted in the zoning code or general plan). The project applicant is also able to utilize incentives, concessions, and waivers under State Density Bonus Law when demonstrating compliance with the enforceable standards. ANALYSIS The City is still evaluating the proposed project in accordance with all of the City’s regulations across its departments in addition to evaluating the project in conformance with CEQA. Staff will prepare findings for a decision once all compliance requirements have been addressed and once the project has either been evaluated and found to be in conformance with CEQA or all requirements under AB 130 have been met. However, to facilitate input on the project design, Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 12 preliminary conclusions of the project’s consistency with applicable plans, goals, and policies are provided in this report. 1 The project site includes seven parcels with varying Comprehensive Plan land use designations, including Service Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Multiple-Family Residential designations as reflected in Attachment A. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations in the Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial land use designations. The project is located along a high-quality transit corridor and the portions of the project site that are within these land use designations are identified as Housing Inventory Sites under the adopted Housing Element. Therefore, the proposed use multi-family residential use is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan land use designations. 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), which is approximately 284 units for this site, plus a 24.5% bonus (70 units) based on the number and income level of the below market rate units provided, resulting in a total of 335 units allowed (density of approximately 136 DU/AC). The project is providing a total of 321 units, which is within the allowed density in accordance with the builder’s remedy provisions set forth in AB 1893. Housing Element Consistency Four of the seven parcels on which the proposed project would be located are identified as housing inventory sites. Specifically, the Housing Element anticipated the development of 3508 El Camino Real with 7 units, 3516 El Camino Real with 7 units, 3606 El Camino Real with 15 units, and 3630 El Camino Real with 8 units. Therefore, across the site the Housing Element assumed a total of 37 units. Of these 37 units, the housing element assumed that 17 would be provided at above moderate income, 8 would be provided at moderate income, 6 would be provided at low income and 6 would be provided at very-low income. The project exceeds the estimated capacity redeveloping the site, with a total of 321 units. The project plans currently reflect that a total of 36 (thirty-six) of the units would be provided at a rate affordable to low income. However, as a builder’s remedy application a total of thirteen percent (37) units must be designated to be provided at below-market rates (BMR) at a rate affordable to low income. This percentage is based on the total number of units allowed prior to the application of state density bonus (284). From the project description and discussions with the applicant staff understands that the intent is to provide 13 percent of the units at a rate affordable to low income. Therefore, staff anticipates that the plans will be revised accordingly upon resubmittal to include one additional BMR units. El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is also subject to the El Camino Design Guidelines and South El Camino Design Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 12 Zoning Compliance3 Because the site area is comprised of several lots, there are varying zoning designations across these lots, including portions zoned CN, CS, RM-30, and RM-40. In December 2023, the City Council adopted the El Camino Real Focus Area which established a local alternative to State Density Bonus Law along four properties on El Camino Real between Page Mill Road and Matadero Avenue. In accordance with the Housing Element Implementation, several additional sites were added to the El Camino Real Focus Area in July 2025, including the subject property, and the development standards were further refined. Moreover, because the project is a “builder’s remedy project,” as defined in AB 1893, the City may only require compliance with those objective standards that would apply to the project if it were proposed on a site that allows the density requested. This project, with a proposed 3.49:1 overall FAR and 128 du/ac density, would be permitted in the El Camino Real Focus Area. Accordingly, the City may only require compliance with objective standards for the El Camino Real Focus Area. Under State Density Bonus Law, an applicant may also request a waiver from any standards that would preclude development at the proposed density. If the project is designed to comply with all objective standards that would apply to a site that allows the density requested, after application of density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers, the City cannot impose conditions that would preclude construction of the project as proposed. Build-to-lines (90% of frontage built to setbacks where a maximum 50% along El Camino Real is required) Upper Story Step Back (None proposed where a 10-foot step-back above 55 feet in height is required) Lot Coverage (83% where maximum 80% is allowed) Build-to-lines (90% of frontage built to setbacks where a maximum 50% along El Camino Real is required) Lot Coverage (83% where a maximum 80% is allowed) 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 12 The Project is inconsistent with the following development standards for a housing project within the El Camino Real Focus area on an RM-30 Zoned Parcel (PAMC Chapters 18.14 and18.13) on APN 137-08-077: Front setback (9 feet where a minimum 20 feet is required) Rear setback (11 feet - 15 feet where a minimum 16 feet is required) Lot Coverage (83% where a maximum 80% is allowed) Minimum Landscaped Coverage (17% proposed where a minimum 30% is required) Common Open Space (0 sf where a minimum 9,000 sf is required) *Total common open space provided for the entire site is 18,967 sf Private Open Space (2,447 sf where a minimum 6,000 sf is required) *Total private open space provided for the entire site is 18,600 sf (12,780 sf non- compliant) Lot Coverage (83% where a maximum 80% is allowed) Rear and Side Daylight Plane (None provided where 10 feet at lot line then 45-degree angle is required) Minimum Landscaped Coverage (17% proposed where minimum 20% is required) Common Open Space (347 sf where minimum 1,125 sf is required) *Total common open space provided for the entire site is 18,967 sf PAMC 18.24.030(b)(4): No loading space or dock is provided. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1)(C): The proposed elevations subject to daylight planes do not comply with the initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45- degree angle. PAMC 18.24.05(b)(2)(B): While the project provides some façade breaks, the proposed facades breaks do not meet the minimum requirements for breaks (4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 sf in area) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(3)(A): While the project does provide at least one vertical façade break facing a public street (El Camino Real), the proposed break does not meet the minimum 400 sf area. The proposed break is 336 square feet in area. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(5): The project site is approximately 2.6 acres with only one housing type. More than two-acre lots are required to provide a minimum of three housing types. PAMC 18.24.060(c)(7): The above ground structured parking levels facing a public right- of-way are not lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     Item No. 3. Page 10 of 12 PAMC 18.24.080(b)(1): While some of the units with private balconies provide clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six-foot diameter, not all of the units with balconies meet this requirement and therefore do not all count toward open space. While the above inconsistencies are described for informational purposes, as noted above, they do not constitute a basis for denial of a Builder’s Remedy project. That said, it appears that some of these objective standards could be addressed through minor modifications to the plans. For example, a loading space could be provided alongside Matadero Ave in close proximity to the mail/parcel room on the first floor to better facilitate package deliveries and limit safety concerns with on-street deliveries. Multi-Modal Access Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bus line 22 runs along El Camino Real with a bus stop near the far northern corner of the project site. The building is located within 1.2 miles of the California Avenue Caltrain Station and is located along El Camino Real, which is considered a high-quality transit corridor. Caltrans recently installed Class III and Class IV bike lanes, which run along the project’s frontage on El Camino Real. The project would include above-grade parking, with 391 spaces. Of those spaces, 321 electrical vehicle (EV) parking spaces (45 tandem) would be provided, including two accessible EV spaces, and one van accessible EV space. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue. Under the Zoning Code, 321 parking spaces are required. Bicycle parking is currently shown within the parking garage towards El Camino Real totaling 280 bike spaces. The project also provides 12 short-term bike racks within the front setback along El Camino Real. Under the Zoning Code, 321 bike spaces are required with 32 short-term bike spaces. Refuse The applicant worked with the City to identify an on-site solution to refuse storage, staging, and removal to address the needs of the site. Staff believes that an on-site staging solution is feasible to avoid impacts to public right-of-way with a recently submitted Trash Management Plan from October 29, 2025. Project plans will be revised to reflect the details of this Trash Management Plan. Trees The project site has a total of 41 existing trees representing 13 species that were assessed in the Preliminary Arborist Report dated July 16, 2024, by HortScience, Bartlett Consulting. Of the 41 trees documented, 31 trees are recommended to be removed due to low suitability for preservation with construction activities. A total of 10 trees on and off-site would be preserved. The project proposes 129 new trees along property lines, as street trees, and within open space areas for a total of 131 trees on-site. Tree replacement mitigation values for the project are further detailed in the Tree Disposition Table (L-5.4) of the plan set, see Attachment G. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. The project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees, which are currently estimated at Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Item No. 3. Page 11 of 12 $12,899,582 plus the applicable public art fee. Staff notes that this fee also does not include the citywide transportation fee, which requires payment of $10,037.58 per net new PM peak hour trip. This number is typically derived from the transportation report that accompanies the environmental analysis for the project. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 3. Page 12 of 12 AUTHOR/ARB LIAISON5 & CONTACT INFORMATION   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 5 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     Item 3 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 44     Item 3 Attachment B - ARB Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 45     9 9 4 8 ATTACHMENT C 3606 El Camino Real, 24PLN-00161 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.14 (Housing Incentives) El Camino Real Focus Area for CS DISTRICT (18.16) PARCELS Residential Development Standards (APNs: 137-08-088, -016, and -079) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None No change Minimum Front Yard (El Camino Real) 0-10 feet to create a 12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 9 feet 11 inches 2 feet 6 inches foot Public Access Easement on El Camino Real – to create an effective 12-foot sidewalk Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion 11 feet – 15 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet adjacent to residential uses Not Applicable Street Side Yard (Matadero Avenue) 5 feet 11 feet – 15 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Matadero Avenue (7) 90% of frontage built to setbacks Upper Story Step Back El Camino Real frontage above 55 feet in height: minimum 10 foot step-back from lower facade, for a minimum 70% of the facade length. Not proposed Max. Site Coverage 50% 80%* (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 83% Max. Building Height 35 ft 85* ft (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 85 ft Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts None Complies Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.6:1 4.0* (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 3.31:1 (86,595 sf of 26,149 sf lot size) Max. Residential Density 108 DU/AC with 24.5% bonus (Cal. Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(11)(C)) 128 du/acre Minimum Usable Open Space 100 sf per unit (5,700 sf) (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 8,0019 sf (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 46     9 9 4 8 Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.14 (HOUSING INCENTIVES) EL CAMINO REAL FOCUS AREA FOR CN DISTRICT (18.16) PARCELS Mixed-use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None No change Minimum Front Yard (El Camino Real) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 9 feet 11 inches 2 feet 6 inches foot Public Access Easement on El Camino Real – to create an effective 12-foot sidewalk Rear Yard None Not Applicable Interior Side Yard None Not Applicable Street Side Yard (Kendall Avenue)20 feet (2) 5* ft (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 11 feet – 15 feet Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)10 feet – 26 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Kendall Avenue (7) 90% of frontage built to setbacks Max. Site Coverage 50% 80%* (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 83% Max. Building Height 25 ft and 2 stories 85* ft (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 85 ft Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.5:1 4.0* (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 3.81:1 (169,379 sf of 44,495 sf lot size) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts None (6)Complies (Abutting RM-40) Minimum Usable Open Space 100 sf per unit (12,000 sf) (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 12,940 sf Max. Residential Density 108 DU/AC with 24.5% bonus (Cal. Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(11)(C)) 128 du/acre (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 47     9 9 4 8 Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 48     9 9 4 8 Table 3: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.14 (HOUSING INCENTIVES) EL CAMINO REAL FOCUS AREA FOR RM-30 DISTRICT (18.13) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth No Change Minimum Front Yard (Kendall Avenue) (2) 20 feet 9 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 11 feet -15 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet 6 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet Not Applicable Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] 25 feet Not Applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet 85* ft (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 85 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Rear Yard Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage 40% 80% (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 83% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.6:1 4.0* (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 3.39:1 Minimum Site Open Space 30% 17% Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (18,000 sf) 100 sf per unit (12,000 sf) (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 0 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (9,000 sf)0 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (6,000 sf)2,447 sf Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 49     9 9 4 8 Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 50     9 9 4 8 Table 4: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.14 (HOUSING INCENTIVES) EL CAMINO REAL FOCUS AREA FOR RM-40 DISTRICT (18.13) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth No Change Minimum Front Yard (Kendall Avenue) (2) 0-25 feet (1) 9 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Not Applicable Interior Side Yard 10 feet, 6 feet for properties less than 70 feet wide 11 feet – 15 feet Street Side Yard 0-16 feet (2)Not Applicable Setback from major roadways (1) [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] 0-25 feet (1)Not Applicable Max. Building Height 40 feet 85* ft (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 85 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane (7)10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Does not comply Rear Yard Daylight Plane (7)10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle. None for lots > than 70 ft wide Does not comply Max. Site Coverage 45%, plus 5% for covered patios 80% (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 83% Max. Total Floor Area Ratio (4)1.0:1 4.0* (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 2.43:1 Max. Residential Density (3) 40 DU/AC 108 DU/AC with 24.5% bonus (Cal. Gov. Code 65589.5(h)(11)(C)) 128 du/ac Minimum Site Open Space 20% 17% Minimum Usable Open Space (5)100 sf per unit (1,500 sf)0 sf Minimum Common Open Space 50 sf per unit (750 sf) 347 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (750 sf)1,034 sf (1) Minimum front setbacks shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Arterial roadways do not include residential arterials. (2) Minimum street side setbacks in the RM-40 zone may be from 0 to 16 feet and shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. (3) Provided that, for any lot of 5,000 square feet or greater, two units are allowed, subject to compliance with all other development regulations. (4) Covered parking is not included as floor area in multi-family development, up to a maximum of 230 square feet per required parking space. Covered parking spaces in excess of required parking spaces count as floor area. (5) Subject to the limitations of Section 18.13.040(e). Usable open space is included as part of the minimum site open space; required usable open space in excess of the minimum required for common and private open space may be Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 51     9 9 4 8 used as either common or private usable open space; landscaping may count towards total site open space after usable open space requirements are met. (6) Tandem parking is allowed for any unit requiring two parking spaces, provided that both spaces in tandem are intended for use by the same residential unit. For projects with more than four (4) units, not more than 25% of the required parking spaces shall be in a tandem configuration. (7) Each daylight plane applies specifically and separately to each property line according to the adjacent use. 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 5: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Multiple Family Residential* Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per unit (321 units) = 321 spaces (ECR Focus Area Allowance) 391 spaces, 90 tandem, 7 guest parking Bicycle Parking 1 per unit long term (321) 1 per 10 units short term (32) 280 long term 12 short term Loading Space 1 required for more than 50 units 0 provided Item 3 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency     Packet Pg. 52     560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 -743-6990 -743-6979 Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia June 6, 2024 Re: Submission of Formal Development Application Under the “Builder’s Remedy” Provision of the Housing Accountability Act – 3606 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Dear All: This firm represents Vittoria Management, Inc. (the “Applicant”), on behalf of whom we are pleased to provide the enclosed formal application for redevelopment of the property at 3606 El Camino Real (the “Project Site”) in Palo Alto, California (the “City”).1 The project proposes to redevelop the Project Site with 335 multifamily units (the “Project”), providing high-quality housing in a contemporary architectural style that will create visual interest and enhance the El Camino corridor, while contributing to the City’s achievement of the City’s regional housing needs allocation. As a housing development project, the Project is subject to Senate Bill (“SB”) 330 and protected by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”).2 The purpose of this letter is to transmit the project’s formal planning application. The application provides the information required by the City’s Preliminary ARB Submittal Requirements Checklist and Major/Minor Architectural Review Submittal Requirements Checklist, which we understand to be the City’s requirements for the Project’s formal planning application. I. SB 330 and the “Builder’s Remedy” Provision of the HAA Pursuant to SB 330, the Applicant submitted a preliminary application on January 30 2024, with the information required by Government Code Section 65941.1 and paid the City’s required fee on February 15, 2024. Accordingly, the Applicant obtained a vested right to develop a housing 1 The Project Site is composed of APNs: 137-08-16, 137-08-88, 137-08-79, 137-08-80, 137-08-81, 137-08-77, 137- 08-70. 2 Gov. Code § 65589.5. The Project qualifies as a housing development project protected by the HAA because the Project proposes all residential units. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(A). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 53     Palo Alto Planning & Development June 6, 2024 Page 2 #503733576_v1 development project in accordance with the applicable “ordinances, policies, and standards” in effect as of February 15, 2024, subject to a requirement to submit a formal application within 180 days, or by August 13, 2024.3 The enclosed formal application materials are hereby submitted in satisfaction of that requirement. An applicant’s vested rights include a right to proceed under the City’s housing element compliance status in effect at the time of the submittal of the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application.4 The compliance status of a jurisdiction’s housing element is determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) and “HCD’s determination of substantial compliance with the Housing Element [l]aw, or lack thereof, is entitled to deference.”5 As confirmed by HCD, when a preliminary application submittal “occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status . . . remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process.”6 Our cover letter for the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application explains in detail why the City’s housing element was not in substantial compliance with Housing Element law at the time of the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application submittal. Additionally, the Applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application prior to the City’s adoption of the City’s housing element on April 15, 2024 and HCD has not yet certified the adopted housing element. Therefore, Applicant’s SB 330 preliminary application vested against the City’s non-compliant housing element and the City must process Applicant’s application for a housing development project regardless of whether the Project complies with the City’s zoning or general plan.7 The proposal of a housing development project that does not comply with a jurisdiction’s applicable general plan designation or zoning, and which is made while a jurisdiction’s housing element is not in substantial compliance with Housing Element law, is informally known as the “Builder’s Remedy.” As explained in our prior letter, the City is prohibited from disapproving a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project “on the grounds it does not comply with the municipality’s zoning and general plan.”8 To qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project, the project must include 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(o)(1); § 65941.1(d). 4 California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STPC02614, Order on Petitions For Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief (“Builder’s Remedy Order”), (Mar. 4, 2024), at 15-16. 5 Id. at 19 (citations omitted). 6 See HCD, “3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica – Letter of Technical Assistance” (Oct. 5, 2022). Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/santa-monica-TA- 100522.pdf. 7 California Housing Defense Fund, Builder’s Remedy Order, at 33 (holding that “the City is required by law to process the application pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA” and that is is an abuse of discretion to find “that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply”). 8 California Housing Defense Fund, Builder’s Remedy Order, at 1; Gov. Code § 65589.5(d). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 54     Palo Alto Planning & Development June 6, 2024 Page 3 #503733576_v1 housing “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” at the statutorily prescribed levels.9 For purposes of the HAA, housing “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes projects in which at least 20% of the units are rented at affordable rents to lower-income households.10 Here, the Project will reserve 20% of the Project’s units as affordable to lower income households Therefore, because the Project will provide the requisite levels of affordable units and the City’s housing element was out of compliance at the time the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application was submitted, the City may not deny the Project for noncompliance with the existing general plan designation or zoning. For this reason, the Project is not required to, and is not designed to comply in all respects with the Project site’s zoning or general plan designations. The Project design may continue to evolve throughout the processing of the Project’s application because a project’s vested rights are maintained as long as “the number of residential units or square footage of construction” does not change by more than 20%.11 II. State Density Bonus Law – Right Reserved By providing 20% of the Project’s units affordable to lower income households, the Project is entitled to the benefits of the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”), Gov. Code § 65915. This letter reserves the right to apply for certain benefits under the SDBL at a later date. Pursuant to the SDBL, the Project’s affordability level entitles the Project to all of the following separate categories of benefits: • (1) A 35% density bonus over the base density; • (2) Two mandatory concessions or incentives; • (3) Any required physical waivers of development standards to accommodate the Project; and • (4) Applicable mandatory residential parking standards. Because the Project is a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project, the Project is not limited by existing zoning or general plan standards and the City must process the Project’s application consistent with the requirements under state housing law.12 Although the Project is not required to exercise the Project’s right to a density bonus, the Applicant reserves the right to apply for density bonus units, up to the maximum, and other protections for which it is eligible. The Project is not required to utilize a density bonus in order to qualify for incentives, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions. Applicant reserves the right to identify and apply for SDBL concessions or incentives, waivers, and parking reductions at a later date. 9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d). 10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3). 11 Gov. Code § 655895(o)(2)(E). 12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1) (any objective policies, standards, or conditions applied to the project must “be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density . . . proposed by the development”). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 55     Palo Alto Planning & Development June 6, 2024 Page 4 #503733576_v1 Please note that the City’s authority to review the “completeness” of the Project’s formal development application is strictly limited to determining whether the application provided the material contained on the City’s official submittal requirements checklist(s), as they existed at the time of submittal.13 Additionally, “[i]n any subsequent review of the application determined to be incomplete, the local agency shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete.”14 We look forward to receiving the City’s response to the enclosed formal application and welcome further advisory comments in addition to the completeness determination. Thank you for your attention to this matter, we look forward to working with the City on bringing this project to fruition. Sincerely yours, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Genna Yarkin Chelsea Maclean 13 Gov. Code § 65943(a); see also Gov. Code §§ 65940, 65941, 65941.5. 14 Gov. Code § 65943(a). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 56     560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 -743-6990 -743-6979 Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland April 25, 2025 - 5th Floor Re: Invocation of “Builder’s Remedy 2.0” Under AB 1893, and CEQA Compliance for the Housing Development Project at 3606 El Camino Real (24PLN-00162) Dear All: This firm represents Vittoria Management, Inc. (the “Applicant”) in connection with its application for a housing development project consisting of 335 multifamily units (the “Project”) at 3606 El Camino Real (the “Project Site”) in Palo Alto (the “City”). The City determined the Project’s application complete for Permit Streamlining Act purposes on December 23, 2024. As explained in more detail in our previous communication, the Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) inclusive of the Builder’s Remedy provision. The Applicant has also secured vested rights to develop the Project pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”), and the Project Site has been included in the City’s housing site inventory for its 6th cycle Housing Element.1 The purposes of this letter are to: 1. Document the Project’s eligibility for and affirmatively invoke the protections of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893, also known as “Builder’s Remedy 2.0”; and 2. Document the Project’s eligibility for the protections of AB 1633 and the “Infill Exemption” from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. AB 1893’s Protections and Its Applicability AB 1893 went into effect on January 1, 2025 and provides significant new protections for Builder’s Remedy projects. Importantly, its new protections extend to proposals, including the Project, that 1 See the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, Appendix D: Site Inventory, available at: https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Appendix-D_Site-Inventory.pdf. Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 57     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 2 #519811046_v2 predate AB 1893’s effective date.2 AB 1893 allows Builder’s Remedy projects to include 13% low income units,3 and for in-process projects switching to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to make modifications to their proposal even if they exceed a 20% change in units or square footage.4 The Applicant is hereby electing to convert to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 and include 13% low income units (37 total units when calculated as a portion of the base maximum density per AB 1893) in the now-revised Project. The Applicant reserves all rights it has including under the HAA as amended by AB 1893, or any other state or local laws, to return to its original proposal for the Project if warranted at a later time. In addition to the above-described provisions, AB 1893 includes the following notable protections, of which we wish to remind the City: • Local agencies may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive approval of a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.5 Local agencies also may not require a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project to apply for or receive any approval or permit not generally required of a non-Builder’s Remedy project of the same type and density.6 • Local agencies may not adopt or impose any requirements (including fees), or undertaking any course of conduct, with respect to Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects that do not apply to other projects.7 • Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Projects are deemed consistent with all applicable local standards and plans, and may not be treated as nonconforming uses.8 • Prior to AB 1893, the HAA provided only that jurisdictions could not “disapprove” Builder’s Remedy projects, or condition such projects in a manner that rendered the affordable portion of the project infeasible. AB 1893 has significantly expanded the scope 2 See Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(A) (as amended by AB 1893) (“For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.”). See also Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5) (“Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, ‘deemed complete’ means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.”) (emphasis added). 3 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(d); (h)(3)(C)(i)(III) (as amended by AB 1893). 4 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(B) (as amended by AB 1893). 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i) (as amended by AB 1893). 6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(ii) (as amended by AB 1893). 7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) (as amended by AB 1893). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 58     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 3 #519811046_v2 of prohibited actions. In addition to prohibiting a local agency from voting to disapprove a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project, AB 1893 also notably prohibits local agencies from: o Taking a “final administrative action” (other than a vote) that functions as a project disapproval;9 o Subjecting a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 to more than five hearings;10 o Wrongfully determining that a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project preliminary application has expired or failed to establish vested rights in contravention of the Permit Streamlining Act;11 o Maintaining a “course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose” that functions as an “effective disapproval” of a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project.12 • AB 1893 also expands the HAA’s prohibition on unlawful conditioning. The local agency is now prohibited from imposing any condition that would render the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project as a whole infeasible (rather than just the affordable component of the project).13 The local agency is also now specifically prohibited from imposing a combination of conditions that would render the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project infeasible.14 The Project qualifies for AB 1893, as documented in the following chart: Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency Affordability (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(A)). The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(3): 55 years for rental units, 45 years for ownership units. “Housing for mixed-income households” = Does the project satisfy one of the applicable affordability percentage requirements? • Yes, the Project includes 13% low income units, calculated as a portion of the base maximum. Will the affordability of these units be ensured for the required period? 9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(A) (as amended by AB 1893). 10 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E) (as amended by AB 1893). 11 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(H) (as amended by AB 1893). 12 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(D) (as amended by AB 1893). 13 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d) (as amended by AB 1893). 14 Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(B) (as amended by AB 1893). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 59     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 4 #519811046_v2 Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency • or • At least 10 % “very low income”; or • At least 13% “low income” ; or • Project contains 10 or fewer units, on a site smaller than 1 acre, proposed at • affordability of the rental units for 55 years. Housing element compliance (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(B)). When application was “deemed complete” (this includes submission of SB 330 preliminary application or formal application)15 the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance16 with this article. At the time of preliminary application submittal (or, if no preliminary application was submitted, the time of submission of a complete formal application), was the jurisdiction’s housing element certified as substantially compliant by HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction? • No – project qualifies for this requirement. Maximum density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(C)). Must comply with the greatest of the following densities (plus can add any density bonus per State Density Bonus Law): (i) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section Does the project comply with the applicable maximum density? • Yes – Explanation below Using the options at left, we have identified the highest density for each APN of the Project Site, and calculated a weighted average by percentage of the site that each APN represents to determine the base maximum density per AB 1893, as follows: APN 137-08-016 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80 15 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5). 16 See Gov. Code § 65589.55(a) (“For purposes of a local agency’s approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a housing development project pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, a housing element or amendment shall be considered in substantial compliance with this article only if the element or amendment was in substantial compliance, as determined by the department or a court of competent jurisdiction, when a preliminary application, including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1, was submitted or, if a preliminary application was not submitted, when a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 was submitted.”). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 60     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 5 #519811046_v2 Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency density”). (II) Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III) The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. Add 35 du/acre to the maximum summarized above, if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I) One-half mile of a major transit stop.18 (II) A very low vehicle travel area. (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.”19 • x 80 = 3.651 du/acre APN 137-08-070 = 40 per zoning x 3 = 120 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 155 du/acre • 5,103 square feet/113,907 square feet x 155 = 6.944 du/acre APN 137-08-077 = 40 per comp plan x 3 = 120 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 155 du/acre • 38,058 square feet/113,907 x 155 = 51.788 du/acre APN 137-08-079 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80 du/acre • 10,194 square feet/113,907 square feet x 80 = 7.160 du/acre APN 137-08-080 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80 du/acre • 28,350 square feet/113,907 square feet x 80 = 19.911 du/acre 17 “The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B). 18 “‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Pub. Res. Code § 21064.3. 19 See HCD, 2024 CTCAC Opportunity Map (https://belonging.berkeley.edu/final-2024-ctcac-hcd-opportunity- map). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 61     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 6 #519811046_v2 Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80 du/acre • 16,275 square feet/113,907 square feet x 80 = 11.430 du/acre APN 137-08-088 = 30 Mullen + 50% = 45 du/acre + 35 for “high resource” tract = 80 du/acre • 10,838 square feet/113,907 square feet x 80 = 7.612 du/acre 3.651 + 6.944 + 51.788 + 7.160 + 19.911 + 11.430 + 7.612 = 108.496 du/acre base maximum for the Project under AB 1893, prior to using any State Density Bonus Law bonus. This yields a 284 unit “base” maximum. The affordability requirement for AB 1893 is a portion of the “base” maximum, making the 13% low income requirement equal to 37 units. The Project achieves the currently proposed 335 units, because 13% low income units achieves an up to 24.5% density bonus, and 284 (the base) + 70 (the maximum bonus) = 354 which is greater than the currently Minimum density (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(D)). (i) On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within 1/2 mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, cannot go below the minimum. (ii) On all other sites with a minimum density Does the site have a minimum density requirement under the local zoning ordinance? If so, does the project satisfy the statutory minimum density requirements? If not, can it be revised to do so? • Not applicable here – project qualifies Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 62     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 7 #519811046_v2 Summary of AB 1893 Criteria Project Consistency density or 1/2 of the “Mullen density,” whichever is lower.20 Site restrictions (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(11)(E)). The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16.21 Does the project site abut a disqualifying industrial site? • No The Project’s Eligibility for the Protections of AB 1633 and a CEQA Infill Exemption We first note for informational purposes that the Project is eligible for the protections of AB 1633, which became effective January 1, 2024, as documented in more detail in the below chart. Under AB 1633, it is now a violation of the HAA to fail to grant qualifying projects a CEQA exemption, where there is substantial evidence in the record that the project is eligible for such an exemption. AB 1633 limits the City’s authority to require analysis that is not legally required and beyond the limited scope of its discretion. 20“The following densities shall be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households: (i) For an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county and for a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area: sites allowing at least 15 units per acre. (ii) For an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county not included in clause (i): sites allowing at least 10 units per acre. (iii) For a suburban jurisdiction: sites allowing at least 20 units per acre. (iv) For a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county: sites allowing at least 30 units per acre.” Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B). 21 Gov. Code § 65913.16(b): (4) “Heavy industrial use” means a use that is a source, other than a Title V source, as defined by Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code, that is subject to permitting by a district, as defined in Section 39025 of the Health and Safety Code,21 pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and Safety Code or the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.). A use where the only source permitted by a district is an emergency backup generator, and the source is in compliance with permitted emissions and operating limits, is not a heavy industrial use. […] (11) “Title V industrial use” means a use that is a Title V source, as defined in Section 39053.5 of the Health and Safety Code.21 Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 63     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 8 #519811046_v2 AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency [S]ubstantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is not located . . .” in the following areas:22 zone 23 coastal zone. statewide importance . . . designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction.”24 farmland of statewide importance by the California Department of Conservation.25 The Project site is not zoned or designated for agricultural protection, but rather is zoned for urban uses and surrounded by other urban uses. uses and does not contain wetlands. Cortese List “or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control,” unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential or residential mixed uses.27 fault zone, “unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards delineated earthquake fault zone.30 22 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1): On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.” 23 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(A) (as amended by SB 423 (2023)). 24 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(B). 25 See https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, last accessed April 13, 2025. 26 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(C) (“as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)”). 27 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(E). 28 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, last visited April 12, 2025. 30 See https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf, last accessed April 13, 2025. Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 64     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 9 #519811046_v2 AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency local building department . . ..”29 subject to inundation by the 1 percent chance of flood,” unless the project has been issued a Letter of Map Revision or flood plain development permit.31 which is not a special flood hazard area.32 has received a no-rise certification.33 an adopted natural community conservation plan . . ., habitat conservation plan . . ., or other adopted natural resource protection plan.”35 not identified for conservation. identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act . . ., the California Endangered Species Act . . ., or the Native Plant Protection Act . . ..”36 and surrounded by urban uses, and the vacant portion of the Project site appears to be regularly mowed, and is fenced. We do not anticipate the Project site contains such habitat. easement.”37 easements recorded on the Project site, based on the Project’s title report. 29 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(F). 31 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(G). 32 See https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, last accessed April 13, 2025. 33 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(H). 34 See https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, last accessed April 13, 2025. 35 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(I). 36 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(J). 37 Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6)(K). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 65     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 10 #519811046_v2 AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.”38 Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the State Responsibility Area as determined by CALFire.39 The project’s parcel(s) is legal and located “within an urbanized area 40 and meets one or the more of the following criteria . . ..”41 distance” of “a high quality transit corridor,” as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or “a major transit stop,” as defined in Pub. Res. Code Section 21064.3.42 qualifies under one or more other criteria. area”43 qualifies under one or more other criteria. . . as of the date of the” application’s submittal.44 A project is proximal an amenity if it is within: • .5 mile of “[a] bus station” or “[a] ferry terminal”; OR 1 mile of “[a] supermarket or grocery store,” “public park,” “community center,” “pharmacy or drugstore,” Community Playing Fields; Grocery Outlet; Barron Park Elementary School; Cornelis Bol Park; and likely others. Analysis not required because the Project qualifies under one or more other criteria – see row immediately below. 38 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1)(B) (“Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code.”). 39 See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity- zones, last accessed April 13, 2025. 40 A parcel is within an urbanized area if it meets the definition provided in Public Resources Code Section 21071. Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(b)(5). The Project site is located in an urbanized area because Palo Alto is a qualifying incorporated city because its population, when combined with the populations of contiguous cities Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, is greater than 100,000. 41 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2). 42 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(A). 43 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(B). 44 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(C). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 66     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 11 #519811046_v2 AB 1633 Eligibility Criteria Project Consistency kindergarten to 12th grade.45 3 sides of a 4 sided project site) is adjoined by urban uses.46 shown on Google Maps. The project’s density meets the following criteria per acre.”47 15 du/ac. “There is substantial evidence in the record that” • exemption”48; AND • That any categorical exemption sought is not barred by an 49 32 Urban Infill Exemption, see the discussion below. We anticipate that the City will find the Project eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, because it meets the Class 32 Infill Exemption criteria and is not subject to any of the exceptions, as documented below. 1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. 45 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(b)(4). 46 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2)(D). 47 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(3). 48 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(A) 49 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(B). Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 67     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 12 #519811046_v2 As revised to proceed under Builder’s Remedy 2.0, the Project is consistent as a matter of law. AB 1893 provides that any project that complies with AB 1893 “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes.”50 On February 7, 2025, San Jose received a Technical Assistance letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that says due to AB 1893, lead agencies cannot rely on subdivision (a) of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 to preclude a project that meets the definition of “Builder’s Remedy” from utilizing a Class 32 Infill Exemption. Builder’s Remedy projects that meet all other criteria for a Class 32 Infill Exemption, and for which none of the exceptions criteria in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines apply, are eligible for a Class 32 Infill Exemption. 2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project Site is approximately 2.61 acres, and is entirely surrounded by urban uses. 3. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The Project Site is not identified in any regional, state, or federal plans for habitat or conservation. The Project Site is developed with urban uses and is surrounded by urban development and significant roadways including El Camino Real, and has no anticipated value as habitat for threatened, rare or endangered species. The vacant portion of the Project Site is regularly mowed and is surrounded by other urban development. 4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. The Project does not entail any unusual methods of construction or particularly impactful use, and we anticipate that the Project will be found not to cause significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. 5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The Project would not propose unusually intensive uses, and will be required to comply with all local regulations governing the provision of utilities and public services. Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions 51: 50 Govt. Code §65589.5(f)(1)(D)(iii). 51 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2. Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 68     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 13 #519811046_v2 1. The project will not have a significant cumulative impact resulting from “successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.”52 The Project is a single residential development, and there is no plan to propose “successive” development on the Project Site. Accordingly, we anticipate the City will conclude that the Project will not have any new cumulative impacts related to “successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time.” 2. The project will not “have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”53 There are no unusual circumstances related to the Project. In determining whether the “unusual circumstances” exception applies, the only questions are (a) whether there is any substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project does not have unusual features that distinguish it from other comparable Class 32 infill projects, and (b) whether any project opponents have shown that “the project will have a significant environmental effect.”54 The Project is a typical infill housing development project and we anticipate that substantial evidence will demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Further, no opponents have demonstrated that the project “will have” significant environmental effects. 3. The project will not “result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.”55 The Project has no effect on scenic highways. 4. The project is not “located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.”56 The Project Site is not listed on the Cortese List and it is not designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control as a hazardous waste site.57 52 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b). 53 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c). 54 Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 822-23 (emphasis in the original). 55 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(d). 56 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(e). 57 California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, last visited April 12, 2025. Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 69     Palo Alto Planning Department April 25, 2025 Page 14 #519811046_v2 5. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”58 The Project Site is not a designated as historic. This exception may only be applied to the extent that designation had already been made on or before the Project’s complete application was submitted.59 As outlined in this letter, the Project is eligible for AB 1633 and a Class 32 Infill Exemption. The Applicant would like to move forward with the process to complete CEQA, including any specific studies required, and look forward to discussing with the City as soon as possible. We appreciate the City’s attention to this Project. Sincerely, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Genna Yarkin Chelsea Maclean 58 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(f). 59 Gov. Code § 65913.10. Item 3 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description Letter     Packet Pg. 70     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 1 Objective Design Standards Checklist The Objective Design Standards Checklist is a tool to evaluate a project’s compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.24). The Checklist is not the Zoning Ordinance. Applicants shall be responsible for meeting the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. To simplify evaluation of the Zoning Ordinance, language in the Checklist may vary from the Zoning Ordinance. (Note: sf = square feet) If a standard is not applicable to applicant’s project, please write N/A in Applicant’s Justification column. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character Check Standard Sheet #Notes (b)(1) Sidewalk Widths (A) In the following districts, public sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) is at least: Commercial Mixed-Use District: CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD: 10 ft El Camino Real: 12 ft San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft And consists of: AP1.00 Complies. 2 feet 6 inches foot Public Access Easement on El Camino Real – to create an effective 12- foot sidewalk Pedestrian clear path width of 8 foot minimum: 12 feet ☐ Landscape or furniture area width of 2 foot minimum: 11.5 feet ☐ If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. ☐ (B) Public sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g. on a through lot with a public access easement, leading to a commercial entry) must be at least 6 feet wide. (C) The width of walkways designed to provide bicycle access (e.g. pathway to bike racks/lockers) must be at least 12 feet wide, consisting of: AP1.00 Complies. 2 feet 6 inches foot Public Access Easement on El Camino Real – to create an effective 12- foot sidewalk ☒ Pedestrian clear path width (8 feet min.): 8 ft Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 71     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 2 Clear space/buffer – (2 feet min. on each side of path, ground cover is allowed): 11.5 feet and 4 feet Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (B)(2) Street Trees 1. One street tree provided for every 30 linear feet of public sidewalk length and located within six feet of the sidewalk. L2.1 Complies a. Length of parcel frontage/public sidewalk length: 412 feet b. Street Trees required (i.e. frontage/30 feet): 14 trees ☒ c. Street Trees provided: 17 (5 existing + 12 new) (B)(3) Accent Paving Parcels abutting University Avenue between Alma Street and Webster include accent paving along the project frontages, as indicated below: N/A Brick paving at corners ☐ Brick trim mid-block ☐Parcel abutting California Avenue between El Camino Real and Park Blvd include decorative glass accent paving along project frontages (B)(4) Mobility Infrastructure ☒ (A) On-site micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or on a path leading to the primary building entry; OR AP2.01 Complies Pi c k O n e ☐Existing micromobility infrastructure (e.g. bike racks/lockers) is already located within 50 feet of project site and located in a public right-of-way. Pi c k O n e ☒ (B) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. On arterials (see Map T-5), except Downtown, seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and the curb; OR AP2.01 Complies Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 72     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 3 ☐Existing seating areas or benches that are already located in the public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. 18.24.030 Site Access Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Through Lot Connections ☐ Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway (with public access easements) connecting the two streets. N/A (b)(2) Building Entries ☒ Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way. If there is no public right-of-way adjacent to the building, entries shall be located from a private street or Pedestrian Walkway. AP2.01 Complies (b)(3) Vehicle Access ☒(A) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets when they abut the property.AP2.01 Complies ☒ (B) Except for driveway access and short-term loading spaces (e.g. taxi), off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading (delivery trucks), and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and primary building frontage. AP2.01 Complies (b)(4) Loading Docks and Service Areas Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows:AP2.01 No loading provided. ☐(A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on façades that do not face a primary building frontage ☐ (B) Loading docks and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened by a solid fence, or wall, or dense landscaping and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement/safety. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 73     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 4 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Building Corner Elements (less than 40 feet in height) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other attached housing products that face the street shall include all of the following features on their secondary building frontage: (A) height and width of corner element shall have a ratio greater than 1.2:1. For townhomes, the width would be equal to the smaller side of one unit?Building above 40 feet a. Secondary building frontage height: _____ feet b. Secondary building frontage length: _____ feet ☐ c. Secondary building frontage height to width ratio: ___ (B) minimum of 15% fenestration area. a. Total secondary building frontage façade area: ___ sf b. Secondary building frontage façade fenestration area: ___ sf☐ c. Percent of fenestration area _____ % Ch e c k A l l ☐(C) At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. (b)(2)(A) & (B) Treatment of Buildings Corners on Corner Lots (40+ feet in height) Corner Buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: A. Street wall is located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet on both facades meeting at the corner and includes one or more of the following building features: ☒i. An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building.AP3.00 Complies Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e wi t h i n A o r B ☒ii. A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade.AP3.00 Complies Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 74     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 5 ☐iii. A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the adjacent/abutting primary façade. B. An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 sf. The open space shall be at least one of the following ☐i. A publicly accessible open space/plaza. ☐ii. A space used for outdoor seating for public dining. Ch e c k O n e o r Mo r e w i t h i n A o r B ☐ iii. A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space (i.e. lobby, retail, etc.) and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% open/transparent. (b)(3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry meets at least one of the following standards: ☒A. Faces a public right-of-way.AP3.00 ☒B. Faces a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway.AP3.00 Complies C. Is visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: i. For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 36 sf and min. dimension of 6 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ft. min. dimension Ch e c k O n e o r M o r e ☐ii. For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porch minimum dimensions of (min. 100 sf and a min. width of 8 feet required): ___ sf and ___ ft. min. width (b)(4) Ground Floor Residential Units A. Finished Floor Height for Ground Floor Units ☐ The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of- way, must be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2a and 2b of the Zoning Ordinance. Calculate minimum ground floor finished floor height: AP2.01 No ground floor units Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 75     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 5 Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 76     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 6 ☐Setback adjacent to public right of way: 20 feet ☐ Minimum ground floor finished floor height: ___0__ feet 𝒚 = ― 𝟒 𝟏𝟓(𝒙)+ 𝟏𝟔 𝟑 where 𝑥 = setback length from back of walk, in feet and 𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet ☐Sites with slopes greater than 2% along building façade – Average height of finished floor: _____ feet Ch e c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☒Sites located in flood zones – the minimum ground floor finished floor height shall be defined by FEMA, less flood zone elevation: _11____ feet B. Setback Trees Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet must have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of facade length, within the setback area. AP2.01 No ground floor units Facade length: Trees required: tree(s) (i.e. façade length / 40) ☐ Trees provided: tree(s) C and D. Front Setback ☐C. Ground floor residential entries are setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of public sidewalk; OR AP2.01 No ground floor units Pi c k O n e ☐ D. Where no minimum building setback is required, all ground floor residential units must be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of public sidewalk. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 77     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 7 Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification E. Unit Entry A minimum 80% of ground floor residential units that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space for minimum. AP2.01 No ground floor units a. Total number of ground floor residential units facing a public right-of-way, publicly accessible path, or open space: 145 units b. 80% of total units in (a): 116 units ☐ c. Subset of number of units in (a) that have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space: 145 entries (b)(5) Front Yard Setback Character Required setbacks provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space and meet the following: (A). Ground-floor retail or retail like uses have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscape or planters.N/A i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 10%): ____ sf☐ ii. Landscape or planter area in required setback: ____ sf (B). Ground-floor residential uses have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. i. Minimum setback area (setback x frontage x 60%): Ch e c k A l l t h a t A p p l y ☐ ii. Landscape area in required setback: (b)(6) Side Yard Setback Character ☐ (A) Each detached dwelling unit shall have at least one usable side yard, at least six feet wide, between the house and fence or other structure, to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards. N/A Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 78     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 7 Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 79     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 8 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet #Notes (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e. average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s), an upper floor step back shall start within two vertical feet of the average height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the façade facing the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. AP3.21 Stepbacks occur on floor three (24 feet). However, in some locations the full 6 feet in depth is not provided, in others more than the 6 feet stepback is provided. i. Proposed building height: 85 feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): 33.75 feet ☒ iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: 24 feet ☐(B) Notwithstanding, subsection (A), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. ☒ (C) If a project meets the following criteria, a daylight plane with an initial height of 25 feet above grade at the property line and a 45-degree angle shall be required. This daylight plane is required if all of these criteria are met: i. The project is not subject to a daylight plane requirement, pursuant to district regulations in Title 18; and ii. The project proposes a building which is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building(s); and iii. The project abuts residential units in the side or rear yard. AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 The building does not comply with daylight planes. (b)(2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses When a building abuts a residential use on an interior side and/or rear property line, the building shall break down the abutting façade and maintain privacy by meeting all of the following: Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 80     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 9 ☒(A) Landscape Screening. A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum one tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. AP2.01 Complies ☒(B) Façade Breaks. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32 sf of area (i.e. 8 ft tall minimum) for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Does not comply. While the project provides some façade breaks, the proposed facades breaks do not meet the minimum requirements for a breaks. ☒ (C) Maximum Amount of Transparent Windows. Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the facing façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if fixed and fully obscured AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Complies (D) Windows. Within 30 feet of facing residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, facing windows on the subject site shall meet the following: (i) Window sills at and above the 2nd floor shall be at least five feet above finished floor; or (ii) Windows shall have opaque or translucent glazing at or below five feet above finished floor; or (iii) Windows shall be angled up to 30 degrees (parallel to window) to face away from the adjacent privacy impacts; and (iv) Landscape screening shall be 24-inch box size or larger and eight+ feet height at planting; 50% evergreens; and located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Complies Ch e c k A l l (E). Balconies: Within 30 feet of residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i) No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within five feet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45- degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windows and/or private open space. (iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Complies Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 81     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 10 a. Minimum 85% solid railing b. Obscure glass railing c. Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g. planter) (b)(3)(A) & (B) Maximum Façade Length - facing a street or public path Buildings 70 feet in length or greater and greater than 25 feet in height For building facades 70 feet in length or greater and facing a public street, right- of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth Largest façade length featuring continuous plane: 61 feet Total Façade length: 390 feet ☒ Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): 15 % Buildings 250 feet in length or greater (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of- way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 sf and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth AP2.03 AP2.04 AP2.05 AP2.06 AP2.07 Does not Comply Total Building length: 391 feet ☐ Number of vertical façade breaks: 5 breaks Width: 42 feet, Depth: 8 feet, Area: 336 sf Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 sf and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. Total Building length: Pi c k O n e C a t e g o r y ☐ Number of vertical façade breaks: Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 82     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 11 Width: Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting façade(s):N/A ☐(A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. Ch e c k Al l ☐(B) For portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. (b)(5) Diversity of Housing Types ☒ A diversity of housing types (e.g. detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, condominiums or apartments, mixed use) are required for projects on large lots: Less than one acre lots: minimum 1 housing types 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 housing types; or More than 2-acre lots: minimum 3 housing types Does not Comply. 2.6 acre lot with only residential and residential accessory uses proposed. 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☒ Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of three or more of the following four techniques: ☐ i. Variation in Building Modulation: Building modulation shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 83     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 11 Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 84     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 12 ☒a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. AP2.02 AP2.03 Complies ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot stepback from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade Ch e c k o n e o r m o r e i f se l e c t e d ☐ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback, where stated ☒ii. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features.Complies ☒ a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. AP3.00 AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 ☒ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. AP3.00 AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Ch e c k o n e o r m o r e i f se l e c t e d ☐ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material ☒iii. Variation in two of the following: AP3.00 AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Complies ☒a. Fenestration Size ☒b. Fenestration Proportion ☒c. Fenestration Pattern Ch e c k t w o i f se l e c t e d ☐d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☒iv. Variation in two of the following:AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 85     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 13 AP3.02 AP3.03 ☒a. Façade Material ☒b. Facade Material Size ☐c. Façade Texture and Pattern Ch e c k t w o i f se l e c t e d ☒d. Façade Color (c)(2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of three of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: ☒A. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows or recessed panels. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. AP3.00 AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Complies ☒B. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices or decorative architectural details. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☒ C. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. ☒D. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☒E. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, or perforated metal screens. ☐F. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. Ch e c k T h r e e o r M o r e ☒G. Incorporate a minimum of three colors, materials, and/or textures across the whole building. (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 86     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 14 (A) Buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented façades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically oriented patterns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: ☐ i. For continuous façades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration. ii. For continuous façades 100 feet or greater in length, the façade shall include either: ☒ a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm between 20 to 50 feet in width; OR AP3.00 AP3.01 AP3.02 AP3.03 Complies Ch e c k O n e ☐b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm between 10 to 16 feet in width (B) Residential mixed-use buildings ☐i. Vertical Patterns and Modulation: Façades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration. Ch e c k O n e o r Mo r e ☐ ii. Horizontal Patterns and Modulation: Façades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. (C) Storefronts ☐Storefront uses must express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width. (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing (A)(i) Building Entries within Façade Design. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries shall meet the following minimum dimensions: ☐a. Individual residential entries: ☒b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies Ch e c k A l l ☐c. Commercial building entry: Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 87     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 15 ☐d. Storefront entry: (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: ☐a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet). Ch e c k On e o r Mo r e ☒b. Weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies (c)(5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors A. Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): 15 feet; OR☒ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: B. Transparency shall include a minimum 60% transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: b. Transparent glazing area between 2 feet and 10 feet: ☐ c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): ☐C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade D. Primary entries shall include weather protection by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): 20 feet AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies☒ b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): 4 feet AP3.00 AP3.01 ☐ E. Awnings, canopies and weather protection: (i) When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. (ii) Awnings may be fixed or retractable AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies (c)(6) Other Non-Residential Ground Floors Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 88     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 16 ☐(A) Ground floor height must be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR match the 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building N/A ☐Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR Pi c k On e ☐Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: (B) Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: Transparent glazing area: ☐ Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): (C) Primary entries include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): ☐ Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street shall be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access. On sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet. AP3.00 AP3.01 Complies Site frontage: 128 feet Matadero / 240 feet Kendall Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access: 14% Matadero / 8% Kendall ☒ Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access 10.7% and 83% (B) Above Ground Structured Parking ☒ Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, must be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet AP3.01 AP3.02 Does not comply (C)&(D) Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 89     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 17 ☐Partially sub-grade parking must not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk. N/A ☐Partially sub-grade parking must be screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. 18.24.080 Open Space Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Private Open Space ☒ (A) Floor area includes clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six- foot diameter. Does not comply. Some of the units with balconies can not have a clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 6 foot diameter. ☒(B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet. Complies ☒(C) Directly accessible from a residential unit.Complies ☐(C) Balconies are not located within the daylight plane. (b)(1)(E) Private Open Space - Ground Floor Patios ☐ (i) RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 sf of area, the least dimension of which is 8 feet for at least 75% of the area. ☐ (ii) RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 sf of area, the least dimension of which is 6 feet for at least 75% of the area ☐ (iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) (b)(2) Common Open Space ☒(A)&(B) Minimum 200 sf of area. Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter. AP2.03 AP2.06 Complies Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 90     City of Palo Alto - Objective Design Standards Checklist Page 18 ☒(C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features allowed AP2.03 AP2.06 ☒ (D) Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 AP2.03 AP2.06 ☒(E) Common open space provides seating. AP2.03 AP2.06 ☒(F) Common open space has a minimum 20% of landscaping.AP2.03 AP2.06 ☒(G) Planting in above grade courtyards has minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees. 18.24.090 Materials Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☒ (b)(1) Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. See webpage for list - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development- Services/Multifamily-Mixed-Use-Objective-Standards Materials Comply 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Code Check Standard Sheet #Applicant’s Justification ☒ (b) See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these regulations may not be modified through alternative compliance. Project complies with Calgreen Tier 2. Item 3 Attachment E - Objective Design Standards Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 91     From:John King To:Switzer, Steven Subject:Fwd: Barron Park Board meeting- 3606 & 3400 El Camino projects Date:Friday, November 8, 2024 3:54:42 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image008.png image007.png image006.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Steven- my name is John King, President of the Barron Park Association. Garrett said to reach out to you about the Creekside Inn,3400 El Camino Real and the 3606 El Camino Real development proposals. We will be having our next board meeting this Tuesday, November 12th at 7:00pm via Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87527712168 Garrett has joined our meeting a couple of times and provided a current update on where the projects stand. He mentioned that these have been assigned to you. Below are Garrett's comments, but if there is anything else you could add, that would be super! You are welcome to join us during our meeting if you are up for a question and answer session, but just any update would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! John W. King President Barron Park Association 724 Barron Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 johnwadeking@gmail.com 650-483-2710 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 3:29 PM Subject: RE: Barron Park Board meeting To: John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com> Hi John, I apologize for not responding sooner. I threw out my back this last weekend so I have been bed-ridden most of the week recovering from that. Here’s a quick update for both: 1. 3606 El Camino Real – that project has been submitted as a Builder’s Remedy application. Initially I reviewed the project but it was reassigned to another planner (Steven Switzer) as I was recently promoted to a management position and will be moving away from reviewing projects. The last comments we provided to them were on 9/12/24 which deemed the project incomplete. I haven’t had conversations with that applicant since late September but Steven may have had some more recently if you want to connect with him: Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org. Generally, the project significantly exceeds the zoning requirements that apply to these parcels. 2. 3400 El Camino Real – this project was also submitted as a Builder’s Remedy application which significantly exceeds the zoning allowances for these parcels. Based on the information that the applicant provided us, we aren’t certain that this project meets the minimum requirements to be a housing development project (which requires at least two-thirds of the square footage to be dedicated to residential uses). The last I spoke with the applicant was a couple weeks ago and they are working on their revisions to resubmit the project within the 90 day time frame provided by the state after the City issues a notice of incomplete. We have yet to receive that. Given my recent promotion, this project will likely be handed off to another planner but I haven’t heard who it will be reassigned to just yet. For the time being, you can ask me questions. Sorry again for the late reply but I won’t be able to attend the community meeting. Let me know if there’s anything that comes up that I can help answer. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Principal Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92     Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 3:16 PM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Barron Park Board meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett- I am just wondering if you could maybe just provide a quick synopsis of where things stand with the El Camino Real development proposals. You don't have to attend the board meeting but any information would be appreciated. Thank you. John W. King Realtor®, DRE#00868208 Keller Williams Realty Palo Alto (650)483-2710 Johnwadeking@gmail.com www.johnwking.com 505 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93     From:Fei Li To:Switzer, Steven Subject:Re: 3606 El Camino Project Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 3:22:31 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Steven, Thank you for taking the time getting back to me, I really appreciate it. I will check the website on regular basis to stay informed. Hope you have a wonderful holiday season. Fei On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 11:38 AM Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Fei, For project updates, feel free to contact me or visit the project’s webpage: 3606 El Camino Real. We are tentatively scheduled for the upcoming December 4th Architectural Review Board (ARB) Meeting. You are welcome to attend that meeting at 8:30 am via zoom or in- person to provide comments. Alternatively, you can provide written comments on the project prior to the public hearing. As for demolition, the project would need to be approved prior to obtaining any permits for demolition. It is hard to give an exact timeline, but it is unlikely that it would occur within the next year. Your property manager/landlord would also be a great resource to contact about how to plan for a potential move. Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Fei Li <fei.lee@gmail.com> Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94     Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 12:46 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: 3606 El Camino Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon Steven, Hope this email finds you well. I am a resident of 528 Kendall Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 and I noticed a recent update on 3606 El Camino Project https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/3606-El-Camino-Real Do you have a rough time line you you can share with me about the demolition so that I can plan accordingly? Thank you and I am looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Fei Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     From:Fei Li To:Switzer, Steven Subject:Re: 3606 El Camino Real Project started? Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 11:44:41 AM Attachments:image002.png image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi Steven, Thanks for the information, have a great day! Fei On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 11:32 AM Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Thanks for the image. The project is still under review, so no work has been approved with regards to the planning entitlement. The truck pictured might be related to another item that is out of the project scope. Steven Switzer Historic Preservation Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96     From: Fei Li <fei.lee@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 7, 2025 1:31 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Subject: 3606 El Camino Real Project started? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Steven, I am a resident of 528 Kendall Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, which is part of 3606 El Camino Real project. I reached to your team before regarding to the project and I noticed people started working on the empty land in front of it this weekend. Is the project started already? And do you have an estimation when will 528 Kendall Ave building be demolished? Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97     Thank you, Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98     Fei Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99     From:John King To:Switzer, Steven Subject:Re: 3606 El Camino Real Updates Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:47:10 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thank you for this update. I will share with our board and neighbors. John W. King Realtor® DRE#00868208 Keller Williams Realty Palo Alto (650)483-2710 www.johnwking.com Johnwadeking@gmail.com 2825 El Camino Real #200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 
 On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 11:33 AM Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi John, Wanted to reach out and provide some updates on the project located at 3606 El Camino Real. We are tentatively scheduled for the upcoming December 4th Architectural Review Board (ARB) Meeting. On September 22, 2025, the applicant also requested that the project be considered exempt under Assembly Bill (AB) 130 [Public Resources Code section 21080.66]. AB 130 exempts many infill housing projects that from CEQA and additionally sets strict timelines for City This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100     review and decision. The City is evaluating the project for its eligibility under AB 130. For more information on AB 130 follow the link: Bill Text - AB-130 Housing. Below is a brief summary: On June 30, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed two budget trailer bills, Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB) 131. AB 130 includes a new exemption from CEQA for certain urban infill housing development projects. The exemption, codified in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, provides a complete exemption from CEQA for all aspects of a qualifying “housing development project”. Applications that are not eligible for the PRC Section 21080.66 exemption or that do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility will not be processed in accordance with Assembly Bill 130 or PRC Section 21080.66. Furthermore, initiation of tribal consultation does not establish eligibility, In short, the unit count has been reduced to 321 units from the initial 335 units with some major design changes to the exterior facades. Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101     From:Fei Li To:Sauls, Garrett Subject:Re: About 3606 El Camino Real Project Date:Tuesday, July 2, 2024 9:02:09 AM Attachments:image012.png image009.png image005.png image014.png image010.png image013.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Garrett, Thank you so much for taking time emailing me. I do want to share some comment with the city. I have noticed in recent years, a lot of old buildings along El Camino Real get upgraded, and a small portion of them become affordable housing. However, a lot of people live in 528 Kendall Ave work for Stanford, like post doctor, staff, nurses, we are not eligible for the affordable house, but we are not making big bucks like high tech people. When those old buildings get upgrades, the new rent becomes unaffordable for us. For example, I am currently pay $2750 per months for 2 bedrooms, but for the new buildings, I may need to pay up to $4500 for a two bedroom apartment, which is beyond my budget. That is why you can feel my pressure. Will city consider give existing residents some benefit so they can still live here? Thank you for your time, I really appreciate it. Fei On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 7:41 AM Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Fei, You can reach out to me for updates on the project if that makes you feel more comfortable. We are currently reviewing the application and planning to provide our first round of comments to the applicant next week. If you or any of your neighbors wish to provide their comments and feedback, you are welcome to send it to me so that I can keep a record of it and share that with any relevant Architectural Review Board members, Planning Commissioners, and City Council members. Best regards, Garrett Sauls Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 329-2471 | Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code | Online Permitting System | Planning Application Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped From: Fei Li <fei.lee@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2024 9:04 AM To: Sauls, Garrett <Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: About 3606 El Camino Real Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning Garrett, Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102     I am a resident at 528 Kendall Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, and I recently noticed a sign outside of 3606 El Camino Real, which proposes a new project and demolish of 528 Kendall Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306. I emailed my landlord company - vrent and I was told the project may or may not go through. And even it goes through, it will take 2-3 years to have any impact on me. As you know it is really hard to find affordable housing near Palo Alto area, I am wondering is there any places I can get an accurate timeline information about the project, so I can better prepare myself? And if the project gets approved and move forward, how far ahead of time we will be noticed by our landlord? Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Fei Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     From:Mircea To:Switzer, Steven Cc:Helen Wang; Kellie Stafford; Liberman, Art; Kristan Green; John King; Dror Katzav Subject:Re: ARB 12/4/25 24LPN-00162 Date:Monday, November 24, 2025 4:20:09 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Thanks Steven, Could I get the link for the staff report when available. Also the application and not the flyer received as notification states : "Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project consisting" Why this project is even scheduled for ARB since "Building Remedy" is N/A....was the applicant informed separately that they are not eligible for Builder's Remedy? Thanks Mircea On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 1:58 PM Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> wrote: Hi Micrea, The plans are quite large to send via email. However, the plans are available online at the following webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/3606-El-Camino-Real A staff report will be published later this week detailing the project’s consistencies and inconsistencies with applicable standards. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 104     Steven Switzer Senior Historic Planner Planning and Development Services Department 650-329-2321 | Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov www.PaloAlto.gov From: Mircea <mircea27v@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 12:13 PM To: Switzer, Steven <Steven.Switzer@paloalto.gov> Cc: Helen Wang <theyuwang@gmail.com>; Kellie Stafford <kkstafford72@gmail.com>; Liberman, Art <art_liberman@yahoo.com>; Kristan Green <kristangreen@mac.com>; John King <johnwadeking@gmail.com>; Dror Katzav <dror.katzav@gmail.com> Subject: ARB 12/4/25 24LPN-00162 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Steven, Could you please send me an email with the submitted plans and any reports that quantify why the development is entitled as a 7-story building with 13% BMR? It appears this may involve an infill exception under AB 130, and I would like to review the basis for that determination. I’m also interested in understanding how the transition to residential has been addressed on CN, RM-30, RM-40 and what is the zoning used for the entire project? Thanks, Mircea 650-996-1114 Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 105     Item 3 Attachment F - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 106     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@paloalto.gov Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3606 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/3606-El- Camino-Real Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 3 Attachment G - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 107     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 4, 2025 Report #: 2511-5477 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of September 18, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 108     Page 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 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 109     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 110     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 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 111     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 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 112     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 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 113     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, Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 114     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 115     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 116     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 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 117     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 118     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 119     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 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 120     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 121     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. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of September 18, 2025     Packet Pg. 122     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 4, 2025 Report #: 2511-5478 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of October 2, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 123     Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 2, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: Board Member Kendra Rosenberg Chair Chen called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared 4 were present. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that Item 3 had been deleted from the agenda. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer specified the item would not be heard at this meeting. The public could speak on it during the comment period for items not on the agenda. Public Comment: Patience Young spoke of Item 3 and disagreed with there being 17 stories. The construction was forward-thinking. She asked if the third building would be low-income housing, if the project should fizzle if the 20 percent would be applied to the tower and the podium building, if there would be balconies in addition to the top floor of the podium building, where large delivery trucks would park, if each unit would have a laundry facility, if solar would be incorporated, what was meant by a commercial condominium referenced in the tentative parcel map, if the pool would be a shallow reflecting pool or a swimming pool, where mail would be delivered and if there would be pet facilities. She had questions about parking. Board Member Jojarth inquired if there was a mechanism to answer the public’s questions. Mr. Switzer answered that general public comment was reserved for items not on the agenda, so there was limited capacity for the Board to comment. Staff would take notes of specific questions, which would be forwarded to the project planner, and there could be follow-up in that manner. Ms. Armer added that the project planner’s information for active applications was available online. Those with questions or comments should reach out to the project planner via email or phone. Board Member Jojarth suggested Ms. Young send her questions to the planner via email, which would be included as part of the package upon hearing the item in the future. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 124     Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 Board Member Hirsch queried why the item was pulled. Ms. Armer did not have specific details on why the item was pulled. It would move forward to a hearing in the future. Deputy City Attorney Madeleine Salah mentioned the item was pulled at the applicant’s request. It would not count toward the 5 hearing limit for the project. Board Member Hirsch questioned if the ARB would hear the item only once and if it had been heard by City Council. Ms. Armer responded there were limits, especially if the goal was for a project to be heard by Council. There had been no public hearings on the project. This would have been a preliminary discussion, so it would have been 1 of 2 with the ARB. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer noted there would be an early builder’s remedy hearing for the 2100 King Road project and a returning item for the tier 2 wireless in the public right of way at the October 16 meeting. A few more meetings would occur in 2025 and the packet listed the 2026 meeting dates. Planned abscesses should be directed to staff’s attention. In-person religious tolerance training would occur on October 14 and 15. He would follow up with Board members who were interested in attending. Chair Chen asked if the builder’s remedy hearing was limited to 5 hearings and if the early hearing would count toward the 5. Mr. Switzer answered the builder’s remedy hearing was limited to 5 and it would count toward the 5. It was believed there had been agreement with the applicant to have hearings beyond 5. The upcoming meeting would be for preliminary feedback. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: Council Adopted Resolution No. 10123 Certifying a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023. Chair Chen requested disclosures from the Board. Vice Chair Adcock, Chair Chen and Board Member Jojarth had visited the site. Board Member Hirsch had no disclosures. Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius recapped the project. The applicant had submitted responses to the Board’s comments made on May 15, 2025, which would be reviewed. The applicant proposed one (instead of two) entry ID directory sign with The Cannery being at the top highlighting the identity of the site and with the tenant names on the right-hand side. The applicant proposed a monument sign identifying The Cannery as the primary tenant. As for the project ID wall sign, the revised proposal Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 125     Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 included only The Cannery Palo Alto with no additional individual tenant signage. A slide was provided showing signage color. Materials and fonts had not changed from the original design. The parking ID and directional wall signage remained as originally proposed. Two tenant ID canopy signs would remain per the original submittal. Images of the proposed parking address signage was displayed and existing signage would remain. There was one Type E identification sign instead of the two noted in the original design. There was a new freestanding monument sign. The remaining signs were the same as per the original proposal. It was recommended that the ARB approve the Master Sign Program recommended for the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. Board Member Hirsch inquired where The Cannery monument sign would be located. Ms. Dobkevicius replied it would be along Park Boulevard. The one at the top of the street would have tenant names and The Cannery at the top, which was in response to the ARB’s previous comments. Vice Chair Adcock queried what the timing would be for the future townhomes and if the roadway would be built prior to the townhomes and with signage in place. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer would provide an answer later in the meeting. Chair Chen questioned if there were minimum or maximum size requirements for lettering or street numbers on signage. Ms. Dobkevicius responded that the numbers on street signage were based on Building Code requirements. One-inch tall letters met Building Code requirements. The tenant ID on the canopy of the building was based on the area of the sign. The proposed tenant ID sign was smaller than what was allowed. The allowable was 66 square feet. The letters would all be the same height. Ms. Armer stated, concerning Vice Chair Adcock’s previous question, the buyer would develop the townhomes. It was hoped the sale would close by year end. The main street was currently being constructed. The roadways in between the townhomes would be built at the same time as the townhomes. They were eager to start ASAP. Board Member Hirsch asked how it would affect the 2 monument signs on Park. Ms. Armer understood the roadway from Park to the Cannery was currently being built. Review of the final map would go to Council next month, which would establish the roadways and who would be responsible for different parts of the land. The signage could be installed before building the townhomes. Board Member Hirsch inquired, regarding the townhomes, if there was a City process for dictating what the builder would have to build. Ms. Armer responded there was a City process. It would have to go through architectural review. Generally the first condition of approval was that the building permit plans be in substantial conformance with the approved planning permits, which staff was responsible for. If there should be modifications, it was generally required that the applicant return for additional architectural review. Vice Chair Adcock queried if the townhome site plan layout was approved as part of The Cannery as part of the planning application. It was surprising that the E1 signs were in the corner of the townhomes, not Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 126     Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 on the street. She asked if the letters on the parking sign would be individual letters with fasteners to the corrugated metal or if there would be a collective plate. Ms. Armer stated the project planner was not at the meeting to discuss it. There was a development plan and agreement, which set parameters and expectations for the development. There had also been a planned community for the site, which included building design. Senior Project Manager at Luxury Surfaces Dustin Passalalpi voiced the intention was that the monument sign at the corner of Park identify the overall site and that the tenant ID and site ID be on the directory sign at the entryway toward the garage. There would not be a tenant sign over the T1 sign on the building identifying the site. The driveway was in the process of being built. The sign would be installed upon receiving the building permit, most likely ahead of the development of the townhomes. To answer Vice Chair Adcock’s question, the parking sign would be individual letters attached to the backing holding the coronation. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Vice Chair Adcock noted that the font, etc., for the 380 Portage Avenue sign did not match on the elevation drawing and the rendering. Mr. Passalalpi replied the elevation would take precedent. Board Member Hirsch expressed there was no signage that would recognize The Cannery on the Acacia side of the building. Mr. Passalalpi wanted to propose a sign off El Camino to identify the site off Acacia but staff deemed it a noncompliant sign because their client did not own the property. There was an easement agreement and a proposal for that had been assembled. The primary identification off Acacia would be E2.2. Board Member Hirsch queried if there was a way to identify The Cannery on the directional signs on the side of the building. If there was not to be a monument sign toward the street, it would be good to identify The Cannery building from Acacia. It was requested that the issue be addressed with the owners. It was requested that the item return to the ARB for discussion but not for a full Board meeting. Mr. Passalalpi acknowledged that identifying The Cannery building from Acacia was a fair point. Board Member Jojarth questioned what times of the day the entry ID 1 and 2 signs would be illuminated. Mr. Passalalpi answered the signs would be illuminated only at night, for the entire night, and would change with the light shifts and the time change. It was within the Title 24 regulation. Board Member Jojarth remarked the signs being illuminated all night may be disruptive to townhome tenants. Ms. Dobkevicius responded the Municipal Sign Code did not require illumination. Board Member Hirsch asked what part of the monument sign would be illuminated and if the Portage sign would face housing. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 127     Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 Mr. Passalalpi replied only the letters on the signs would be illuminated. The Portage sign would be double-sided with one side facing the townhomes. Page 17 and 18 showed a day and night view of the signs. Such monuments were very common. He had not personally heard any complaints about such lighting. Board Member Hirsch did not consider it a major visual issue. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if the T2.1 and T2.2 signs would face the townhomes. Mr. Passalalpi replied they would face the garage and parking. Chair Chen asked if future playground tenants would be limited to orange and gray signs. Mr. Passalalpi was not currently branding colors or font. Future tenants would have a right to put their color and phone there. Board Member Hirsch noted there was only space for 3 bits of information on the monument. He queried what would be proposed for the sign if there should be another major tenant. Mr. Passalalpi understood that it would be a multitenant building. If there should be one tenant, the three panels could potentially become one panel or the top and bottom might be blank with the logo in the center. Vice Chair Adcock queried if the applicant would have to return for application revision if future tenants’ names fit within the dotted lines of the monument sign with the directional ID sign. Ms. Dobkevicius clarified the dotted line was for width and height of tenant names. The overall size of the sign was 4’3”X2’, which was the maximum allowable for this type of sign. A future tenant would not have to return for application revision if the tenants’ names fit within the dotted lines. Chair Chen queried if there was a limitation on the number of directory signs allowed. Ms. Dobkevicius replied there could be a sign on each frontage. Vice Chair Adcock proposed discussing whether the Portage sign, and when entering from Acacia and the other directional signs should include The Cannery logo and name. Board Member Hirsch preferred there be a monument sign on the street edge of El Camino. If needed, there should be an exception to allow signage pointing to the commercial usage of the facility. Chair Chen agreed there should be a monument sign on El Camino. Having a Cannery sign facing Acacia or Portage when entering the property would also be nice. Maybe there should be more monument signs on that side of the building. The location of the directory signs was appreciated and that there were different designs of the directory and the monument signs. Board Member Jojarth preferred keeping the number of signs to a minimum and that there not be a sign on El Camino because it could set a precedent. Maybe there was more flexibility on the Ash Street side. The future townhomes was a concern, so signage on that side should be minimized. Light pollution was a concern. It was suggested that all illuminated signs be powered off between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 128     Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 Chair Chen agreed that the tenant ID sign on the building should not be illuminated between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. She questioned if it was required that the address numbers on entry signs be illuminated during the night for fire safety and if the City could regulate lights being turned off during the night. Ms. Armer was not sure if the address numbers needed to be illuminated for fire safety. The lights were not bright. There were lighting regulations. Staff was not concerned about the lighting impacts. If the applicant was required to turn lights off at night, it would be handled through a condition of approval. Board Member Hirsch did not agree with turning the lights off. Lighting was a part of the character of the project. It could be requested that a committee review it and then return to the ARB. Vice Chair Adcock did not agree with adding an additional monument sign, as it was a significant change. At the previous hearing, it was requested that there not be a monument sign on the easement property, which the City supported. She supported a Cannery sign when approaching the campus from the Acacia and Portage side and a sign, such as the T1 sign or something smaller, on El Camino, which she considered more property identification than directional. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer clarified that neighboring properties was not under the control or ownership of the current application or property owner, so putting a sign on an adjacent property was not in the scope. The code did not allow for an offsite sign. If lighting should be limited, there should be a discussion with the applicant to determine feasibility. Chair Chen inquired if office buildings were required to have limited or no lighting during the night. Ms. Dobkevicius responded the Lighting Code had foot candle measurements, so a condition of approval could be added. The foot candle measurement should not exceed 0.5 for a property next to residential use and there were requirements for timing and dimmers at night, which had to be complied with. Ms. Armer explained that was for external lights. If it was a lower light level, the code would not apply. Board Member Jojarth commented the building had very large windows overlooking the townhomes and indoor lighting could be a nuisance, which staff should investigate. Chair Chen requested a straw poll for adding a monument sign along Ash Street. Vice Chair Adcock expressed there was not space to put a monument sign on Ash Street. Chair Chen mentioned maybe on the side of the building. A version similar to the wall-mounted sign on Ash Street at the end of Acacia. Ms. Dobkevicius voiced there was directory signage on that wall. Vice Chair Adcock suggested something like the T1 Cannery sign be incorporated into D1 and D2, not a ground-mounted monument but something on the wall. Chair Chen greed. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that was a good choice. The thought of the monument was to possibly find a way to use it on the El Camino side. There should be a monument sign on El Camino if it was possible for the developer to make a private arrangement with senior housing or the Acacia corner building. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 129     Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 Vice Chair Adcock understood that the driveways coming into the site from both streets would be part of The Cannery property and that Portage and Acacia were public streets. Board Member Hirsch remarked the streets coming into the property accessed the townhomes and were public streets. Mr. Switzer stated there was a multimodal bike ped path next to Ash, so having a monument sign there would be tight. Wall signage might be more appropriate. Board Member Hirsch stated the alternative could be the wall sign if a monument sign was not possible. Mr. Passalalpi noted he had a supplement document proposing a monument sign on El Camino. Sobrato had come to a legal easement agreement with the property owner in that area, although the City deemed it noncompliant because it was not Sobrato’s property. Board Member Hirsch requested the monument sign be allowed. Ms. Armer stated offsite signage was not allowed by code. MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved to approve the project, that staff review The Cannery sign on the D2 directional wall signs and that the lighting plan be a condition of approval. Board Member Hirsch also moved that there be a monument sign on El Camino if the City would agree and if not successful, that a building sign be added to the Portage-Acacia end of the building. Ms. Dobkevicius noted that a monument sign on El Camino would not be allowed per the Sign Code. The applicant would have to apply for a sign exception and there would have to be findings to approve it. Jennifer Armer clarified that the lighting plan would have to comply with the current code. It was not recommended that a monument sign on El Camino be part of the project. The interest by the ARB had been clearly heard. It would require extensive review and potentially modification to the code. Board Member Jojarth was in favor of adding The Cannery signs to the walls but not the sign on El Camino Real. Chair Chen agreed. Board Member Hirsch encouraged considering the sign on El Camino Real. He removed from the motion the statement that there be a monument sign on El Camino. Ms. Armer clarified there would be 2 conditions of approval – consideration of a directional wall sign and a lighting plan with foot candle measurements. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. Board Member Jojarth inquired, concerning a monument sign on El Camino, if a subcommittee could be formed to develop a proposal for the City to review the code or if Planning could investigate the issue and develop guidelines. Criteria may have been needed for approving a sign on a property that did not belong to an applicant. VOTE: Motion carried, 4-0-1 (Rosenberg absent) Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 130     Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 Mr. Switzer addressed the process for Board Member Jojarth’s question. Board members could possibly form an ad hoc to evaluate such. Plans for applicants were not developed by staff or the ARB. There was criteria in the code regarding signage. Any deviation from that would be a code amendment subject to Council approval as well as considerable staff time to formulate it. Ms. Armer added that priorities were set by Council. Council would discuss the ARB Work Plan in the future. There was no agenda space available before the new year. The Work Plan or the Council priorities discussion in the new year may be an opportunity to discuss additional work the ARB may want to advocate for. A City-initiated code amendment would need to be directed by Council, although the ARB could advocate for it. Board Member Hirsch did not consider it complicated. Having another monument on the street that would lead to wayfinding would be good. Many may use El Camino to get to The Cannery. Vice Chair Adcock agreed with Board Member Hirsch’s intention but there was a City code, which required amendment. Board Member Hirsch expressed it should be voted on as an exception to the code. MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved to recommend consideration of an off-site sign, as wayfaring, on or near El Camino Real. Ms. Armer voiced that an application would need to be filed requesting an exception to the code, which would need to be publicly noticed and reviewed for that particular location, including sign design. Board Member Jojarth seconded the motion. Chair Chen requested that the record of the decision from the last meeting be supplied. Ms. Armer responded there had been no decision at the last meeting, though direction was given to the applicant, which aligned with off-site signage not being allowed by code. Chair Chen stated she would support considering adding an off-site sign to direct folks to or notify folks of the site. Mr. Switzer mentioned that the item was discussed at the last meeting but it was not included in the motion. It was cited as perhaps a special situation and considered fair to ask for special signage. VOTE: Motion carried 3-1-1 (Adcock no, Rosenberg absent) Vice Chair Adcock had voted no because the site was not a public interest, such as a museum. Board Member Hirsch spoke of the importance of the site’s history. The most historic and interesting feature of the building had been preserved. It was recommended that students visit the site to learn about the history. Board Member Jojarth found that interesting. An historic sign in front of the building may be appropriate, which may look different than the current proposal. Vice Chair Adcock’s point was also appreciated. A sign on El Camino should not advertise a certain store. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 131     Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/02/25 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 156 California Avenue [24PLN-00100]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow the Deconstruction of an Existing Grocery Story (Mollie Stone’s) and an Adjacent Vacant Parking Lot and Construction of a Mixed-Use Development with 18,719 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 382 Residential Rental Units, 20% of Which Would Be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: An Environmental Impact Report is Currently Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Lot ACC(2)(R)(P); Lot B- CC(2)(R). This item will not be heard at this meeting. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2025 MOTION: Chair Chen moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried, 4-0-1 (Rosenberg absent) 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 21, 2025 Board Member Hirsch noted on the 4-1 vote, Hirsch no, he had not objected to the red box top. The dimensions were fine but reducing the height of it would have significantly restricted the design. “The red box top and” should be eliminated from the sentence on Packet Page 143. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer acknowledged that staff would review what was stated in the record and amend the minutes accordingly. MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried, 4-0-1 (Rosenberg absent) Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas There were no comments. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 10:29 a.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of October 2, 2025     Packet Pg. 132     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: December 4, 2025 Report #: 2511-5479 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of October 16, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 133     Page 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 10/16/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 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) Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 134     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 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 135     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 136     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 137     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 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 138     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 139     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 140     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 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 141     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 142     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 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 143     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 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 144     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 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 145     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 146     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 147     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 148     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 149     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 150     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 151     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 152     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 153     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. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of October 16, 2025     Packet Pg. 154