Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, July 16, 2026 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 76, 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. Board member 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 General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. 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.   IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   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.Study Session on Process and Design Standards for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 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.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan. CEQA Status: Not a Project APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2026 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 4, 2026 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   ADJOURNMENT   INFORMATIONAL REPORT 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: July 16, 2026 Report #: 2607-6536 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: August 6, 2026 No items to report The following new ARB project was submitted: 1185 Skyline Blvd 26PLN-00157 Preliminary Architectural Review for a new skyline field office for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). Attachment A: 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 1 & AUTHOR 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 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 1 1 7 7 1 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 Adcock, Hirsch 2/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 3/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Rosenberg 4/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/7/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Jojarth 5/21/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/4/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 6/18/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Adcock, Chen, Rosenberg 7/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Adcock 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 A - 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     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: July 16, 2026 Report #: 2604-6290 TITLE Study Session on Process and Design Standards for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. CEQA Status: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Conduct a study session to discuss the Architectural Review Board (ARB) standards of review for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) in the public right-of-way (ROW). Staff requests ARB to provide comments and feedback on the City’s review criteria and process to support more efficient and consistent review of future wireless applications, using the previous objective design standards as a foundation for discussion. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides background information on the City’s ability to regulate the installation of wireless facilities in the public ROW and summarizes the current ARB review process and review criteria for Tier 2 and Tier 3 wireless applications in the public ROW. Unlike typical local land use development applications, the scope of local review of wireless applications is significantly limited by Federal and State laws and regulations. The City has some authority over WCF siting, but that authority is subject to both procedural and substantive limitations. This report summarizes the local code framework (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110), differentiates the two application tiers, and identifies the review criteria that are within the ARB’s purview. After six years of relying on Objective Standards for review of Tier 2 and 3 wireless facilities, City Council moved to repeal those WCF Objective Standards (Attachment A) and require ARB review of Tier 2 and Tier 3 WCFs in the public ROW, effective as of July 2025.1 At the May 19, 2025, hearing, Council directed ARB to develop a new set of objective or subjective standards for review, and define a review process, to be recommended to Council for approval. 1 A link to the May 19, 2025 staff report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16109 Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2.. Page 2 of 12 This ARB study session discussion is scheduled at this time both because of the 2025 Council direction on this issue, and the anticipated submittal of two cluster wireless applications in the near future, each of which could include up to 15 new wireless installations on streetlight and/or utility poles. Accordingly, staff is providing the ARB with information on the applicable regulatory framework and is seeking feedback on the relevant review criteria and process to support more efficient and consistent review of future applications. The previous objective design standards in Attachment B are included as a foundation for discussion, but staff also requests ARB input on any additional information or review criteria needed to support the findings for approval. BACKGROUND The appearance of pole-mounted equipment; The extent to which antennas and equipment cabinets are concealed or integrated into existing infrastructure; The cumulative visual effect of multiple installations along a corridor; and The relationship of a proposed facility to nearby residential areas, heritage and protected trees, or prominent civic and pedestrian environments. Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2.. Page 3 of 12 Palo Alto Regulations 3 3 A link to PAMC Section 18.76.010 is available online at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-81687 Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2.. Page 4 of 12 PAMC Section 18.42.110 establishes the City’s framework for WCFs and includes standards intended to reduce visual clutter, protect neighborhood character, and ensure that wireless infrastructure in the public ROW is designed to be as minimally intrusive as feasible. Although the code should always be consulted directly for operative language, several regulations are specifically important for the ARB. Collocation: Installation of wireless equipment on an existing support structure. Small Wireless Facility: Antennas not exceeding 3 cubic feet and associated equipment not exceeding 28 cubic feet; subject to specific dimensional criteria under FCC rules. Substantial Change: A physical modification that exceeds specified thresholds set by FCC regulations (e.g., height increases of more than 10% or 10 feet, installation of additional equipment cabinets, or changes defeating concealment elements). Tier 1: Eligible Facilities Request Tier 2: Non-Tier 1 Modifications and Small Wireless Facilities Tier 3: New Facilities Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2.. Page 5 of 12 Shot Clock Timelines 5,6 Although the Objective Standards are no longer required to evaluate a ROW WCF application, these standards may be used as guidelines in commenting on the size, location, and aesthetic appearance of the proposed wireless project. The repealed Objective Standards previously adopted under Resolution 9873 in 2019 can be viewed in Attachment B. Federal Preemption & Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985. The current guidelines were adopted in August 1997 in FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65.3.7 The guidelines are expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field strength and power density. The guidelines, which cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz, address two separate tiers of exposure: 5 A link to the September 18, 2025 staff report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16806 6 A link to the October 16, 2025 staff report is available online at: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16820 7 A link to the FCC OET Bulletin 65 is available online at: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2.. Page 6 of 12 exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. 2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996,11 Federal regulations preempt State and local regulation of RF emissions generated by WCFs. The City’s authority in this area is limited to ensuring that the proposed installation complies with comprehensive emissions standards established by the FCC. Federal regulations also require signage to be posted that is visible upon approach that informs personnel accessing this area of basic precautions to be followed when working around the antennas. Additionally, City regulations require signage to match the existing steel streetlight pole and meet the camouflage/concealment elements. Special Street Light Style Placement Guide The City’s Special Street Light Style Placement Guide (Attachment F), adopted in June 2015 and revised in March 2020, establishes geographic areas where decorative roadway lighting and pedestrian-scale lighting should be used in lieu of the City’s standard streetlight designs. The guide identifies three special lighting areas – Downtown, California-Park, and El Camino Real – wherein the suggested lighting typologies may provide a useful urban design framework for reviewing future wireless infrastructure proposals on new or existing streetlight poles. Because the guide distinguishes between special-design corridors and standard streetlight areas, it supports an approach in which wireless equipment placed on decorative or pedestrian-scale poles is expected to remain visually subordinate to the adopted streetscape character, particularly in higher-visibility areas such as Downtown. In areas outside the designated special- style corridors, the City’s standard aluminum poles may present fewer design conflicts for wireless equipment. The supporting pole and luminaire specifications in the style guide indicate that structural and mounting feasibility would need to be evaluated on a pole-specific basis before any wireless installation could be considered. They also note that maximum effective projected area for wireless equipment is dependent on luminaire weight, and that additional weight may reduce allowable capacity. Separate specification sheets for other corridor elements similarly identify bracket weight, effective projected area, and tenon or pole interface requirements relevant to any added equipment load. 11 A link to Telecommunications Act of 1996 is available online at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996; Section 704 (47 U.S.C § 332(c)(7))) addresses the preservation of local zoning authority within the federal legal framework. Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2.. Page 7 of 12 The streetlight pole specification materials also include a manufacturer warning that unauthorized accessories, including banners, signs, cameras, or similar attachments for which the pole was not designed, may void the pole warranty and may result in failure, and that engineering analysis is the customer’s responsibility to confirm pole and fixture compatibility. Accordingly, if wireless facilities are proposed on existing decorative or standard streetlight poles, City review should distinguish between design compatibility and structural feasibility, with the latter requiring applicant-provided engineering documentation addressing mounting method, wind loading, equipment weight, and consistency with manufacturer limitations and applicable structural standards. Noise California Public Utilities Code § 7901 (granting telephone companies a limited franchise to use public ROW); Government Code § 65964.1 (providing deemed granted remedies to applicants, meaning a project is deemed approved as submitted in the project application if City fails to act on the application within a reasonable time); and, Applicable regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) such as General Order 95 (regulating safety of utility infrastructure). ANALYSIS Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2.. Page 8 of 12 ARB FINDING APPLICABILITY (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. Confirm consistency with PAMC Section 18.42.110, any City wireless aesthetic standards, adopted streetscape/design guidance, historic resource constraints, and ROW context. (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. Look for integrated equipment placement, coherent shrouding, minimized visual clutter, preservation of significant site features, and compatible transitions relative to adjacent uses. (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. Evaluate concealment strategy, equipment proportions, finish colors, cable management, antenna profile, cabinet integration, and whether replacement poles/readily visible equipment appear subordinate rather than dominant. (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.). Confirm the facility does not impair sidewalk clearance, ADA access, visibility, maintenance access, emergency access, or safe coexistence with other utilities and streetscape elements. (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. In the ROW context this may be limited, but ARB should ensure the proposal avoids unnecessary loss of required landscaping and does not create conflicts with street trees or planter areas. Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2.. Page 9 of 12 ARB FINDING APPLICABILITY (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Where relevant, consider durable materials, efficient equipment arrangement, reduced future disturbance, and design choices that limit repeated visual or physical alterations. Wireless-Specific Development Standards The PAMC establishes wireless-specific development standards (the Generally Applicable Development Standards, PAMC 18.42.110 (i)) intended to ensure that WCFs in the public ROW are designed to minimize visual impacts, maintain compatibility with surrounding development, and avoid unnecessary disruption to site features and protected resources. In reviewing Tier 2 and Tier 3 WCFs, the ARB shall focus on whether the proposed installation reflects the least intrusive design that is technically feasible to meet the applicant’s service objective and whether the facility has been appropriately screened, concealed, and integrated into its physical setting. These standards apply in conjunction with applicable Federal law, including limitations on local discretion in circumstances governed by the Spectrum Act13 (i.e. Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)), for instance, the project applicant determines what is technically feasible, and a local aesthetic standard that cannot be feasibly constructed would be found unreasonable. The Generally Applicable Development Standards in PAMC 18.42.110 (i) include: 1) Use the smallest antennas, radios, and associated equipment, measured by volume, that are technically feasible to achieve the network objective. 2) Screen the facility from public view. 3) When attached to an existing structure, shroud or screen the facility using materials or colors found on the existing structure. 4) Avoid placement requiring removal of required landscaping or reducing landscaping below zoning compliance. 5) Require a camouflaged or stealth design, including concealment, screening, or other techniques to hide or blend the facility into the surrounding area. 6) Do not attach the facility to a historic structure or site designated under Chapter 16.49. 7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than 15 feet above permitted building height. 8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may not exceed 65 feet in height. 9) A tower or stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into interior side, street side, and rear setbacks as provided by the Code. 13 A link to Spectrum Act Section 6409(a) is available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE- 2024-title47/html/USCODE-2024-title47-chap13-subchapIV-sec1455.htm Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2.. Page 10 of 12 ARB Review Framework Can the findings on concealment, dimensions, equipment volumes, pole design, cabinet design, colors, equipment location, pedestrian clearances, and the surrounding context be met? Determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed equipment is the smallest technically feasible equipment for the stated network objective, as required by the Code. Evaluate whether a less visually prominent location on the same support structure or within the same corridor is feasible without resulting in an effective prohibition under federal law. Focus comments on previously published design-based considerations, including scale, visibility, finish, visual clutter, compatibility, concealment, landscaping, sidewalk function, and the relationship to adjacent properties. State whether staff’s analysis of the ARB findings are sufficient and if not, explain the basis for that conclusion. Are the current architectural review findings and applicable code standards sufficient for wireless facilities in the public ROW? Where does ARB need clearer direction to distinguish aesthetic review from issues outside local or Federal discretion? Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2.. Page 11 of 12 Would a standardized findings checklist or scope-of-review summary improve consistency in future reviews? Equipment Design, Concealment, and Pole Integration What concealment, shrouding, cable management, and finish treatments should the City expect as a baseline? What pole placement, antenna orientation, and equipment grouping approaches are most compatible with Palo Alto streetscapes? How should ARB balance concealment goals against increases in pole height, equipment bulk, or structural constraints? Streetscape Compatibility and Sensitive Contexts What design features make wireless facilities compatible with surrounding streetscapes, including residential areas, mixed-use corridors, and commercial districts? How should ARB evaluate installations near homes, schools, daycares, parks, and landscaped areas? Are there location-based wireless design or equipment placement preferences or design distinctions ARB wants staff to explore further? Public Realm Function and Cumulative Effects What information should applicants provide to demonstrate that pedestrian function and public access have been protected? How should ARB evaluate cumulative visual impacts when multiple facilities are proposed along the same corridor or within the same neighborhood? Standards, Application Materials, and Process Improvements What application materials and visual exhibits are most important to support efficient and informed ARB review? Should future wireless standards be primarily objective, discretionary, or a hybrid of both? Which former standards or concepts should be retained, revised, or replaced? What process changes would most improve clarity, consistency, defensibility, and timeliness of wireless application review? FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Per the Municipal Fee Schedule,15 all WCF permits applications are processed as Cost Recovery applications for staff review time. The Municipal Fee Schedule established that when a timely appeal is filed by a party, the appealing party then submits a deposit for the processing of that appeal. Processing costs are retained by the City when an appeal upholds the PDS Director’s decision but are refunded if an appeal reverses the Director’s decision. 15 A link to Palo Alto Municipal Fee Schedule 2026 is available online at: Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule.book Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2.. Page 12 of 12 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This study session is not subject for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since it does not qualify as a project and no formal action is requested from ARB at this time. Attachment A: Ordinance 5655 Attachment B: Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed) Attachment C: Findings for Approval for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW Attachment D: Standard Conditions of Approval for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW Attachment E: Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW Attachment F: Special Street Light Style Placement Guide 17 Liaison & Contact Information Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner (650) 838-2806 (650) 329-2321 nishita.kandikuppa@paloalto.gov steven.switzer@paloalto.gov 17 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     1 027120324 Ordinance No. 5655 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code on a Temporary Basis to Modify the Procedure and Standards Governing the Review of Wireless Communications Facilities Applications; and repealing Resolution 9873 (Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A.The City Council has adopted a Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) code to regulate the various health, welfare, and safety impacts presented by the proliferation of WCFs and to balance these impacts with the interests of consumers in receiving the benefits of wireless technologies. B.Federal and state law place significant limits on the City’s exercise of local control over WCF matters. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (WT Docket No. 1779; WC Docket No. 1784; FCC 18-133), further limiting local control. C.On August 12, 2020, in a decision in the City of Portland v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated certain elements of the FCC’s Order 18-133 restricting local aesthetic regulations of WCFs. Specifically, the Court struck down the requirements that local standards be “objective” and “no more burdensome” than those applied to similar types of infrastructure installations. Now, a city’s aesthetic regulations for small wireless facilities will not be preempted by federal law if they are: (1) reasonable technically feasible and reasonably directed at remedying aesthetic harms) and (2) published in advance. D.As a result of the Portland decision, the City Council wishes to modify the WCF ordinance provisions relating to the permit review process for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Facilities in the public right-of-way, to repeal references to the Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards and to require review of such applications by the Architectural Review Board ARB) under the City’s architectural review findings. E.Section 18.80.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to change or suspend operation of the Zoning Code for temporary periods without review by the Planning and Transportation Commission when in the determination of the council such suspension or change is necessary for the public health, safety or welfare. SECTION 2. Resolution 9873, Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way, adopted December 16, 2019, is hereby repealed. For the avoidance of doubt, by this action Council repeals all prior versions of these objective standards, including Resolution 9825 April 19, 2019), Resolution 9847 (June 17, 2019), and Resolution 9855 (August 12, 2019). Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 20     2 027120324 SECTION 3. Section 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in underline format and deletions in strikethrough format): 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities a)Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. Although this section implements and references provisions of preemptive state and federal law, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to create an independent source of the rights provided an applicant by such state or federal law. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this section are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building- mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. b)Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. 1)"Antenna" means that part of a wireless communications facility designed to radiate or receive radio frequency signals or electromagnetic waves for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i). This definition does not include antennas designed for amateur or household use. Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 21     3 027120324 2)"Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. 3)"Base Station" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: A.Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. B.Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). C.Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. 4)"Collocation" means the same as defined in valid regulations promulgated by the FCC, including 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.6002(g) or 1.6100(b), as those sections may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, the definition provided in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), for eligible facilities requests, is stated as follows: the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. 5)"Eligible Facilities Request" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. 6)"Eligible Support Structure" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. 7)"Existing" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: a constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of an eligible facilities request if has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 22     4 027120324 process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. 8)"FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. 9)"Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. 10)"RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. 11)"Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). 12)"Small Wireless Facility" means the same as defined in any valid regulations adopted by the FCC. For purposes of convenience only, the definition provided at 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1312(e)(2) is stated here as follows: a facility that meets each of the following conditions: A.The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted: i.Is 50 feet or less in height, or ii.Is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or iii.Is not extended to a height of more than 10 percent above its preexisting height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and B.Each antenna (excluding associated antenna equipment) is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and C.All antenna equipment associated with the facility (excluding antennas) are cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; and D.The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R. Section 17; and E.The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(x); and F.The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by the FCC. 13)"Substantially Changes" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: A. For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 23     5 027120324 i.The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or ii. There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. B.For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: i.The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or ii. There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or iii.It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or iv. It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre-existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. C.For any eligible support structure: i.It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or ii. There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or iii.The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or iv.The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. D.To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: i. For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; ii. For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. E.To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 24     6 027120324 14)"Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. 15)"Transmission Equipment" means the same as defined by the FCC at 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b), as it may be amended from time to time. For the purpose of convenience only, this definition is stated as follows: equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. 16)"Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small wireless facility, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto, but does not include: A.A facility that qualifies as an amateur station as defined by the FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, or its successor regulation; B.An antenna facility that is subject to the FCC Over-The-Air-Receiving Devices rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, or any successor regulation; C.Portable radios and devices including, but not limited to, hand-held, vehicular, or other portable receivers, transmitters or transceivers, cellular phones, CB radios, emergency services radio; D. Mobile services providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary nature; E.Telecommunications facilities owned and operated by any government agency or emergency medical care provider. c) Types of WCF Permits Required 1)A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. 2)A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: A.Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or B.Any collocation of a small wireless facility; or C.Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. 3)A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF, including a small wireless facility, that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. An application shall not require a Tier 3 WCF Permit solely because it proposes the replacement in-place of an existing streetlight or wood utility pole. d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 25     7 027120324 1)Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department when filing an application; 2)The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; 3)The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; 4)The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; 5)Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; 6)The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); 7)For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. Applicants are encouraged to host the meeting before submitting an application. Before an application may be approved, the applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: A.Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting no later than 15 days after filing the application; B.A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; 8)For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be feasible and permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and 9)Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. e)Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods. The city shall review and act upon application materials in a manner consistent with any timeframes provided in controlling state or federal law, including valid regulations and orders promulgated by the FCC. f)Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings 1)A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable; Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 26     8 027120324 2)The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; 3)The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: A.The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and B.The conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). g)Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings 1)A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. For WCF installations in the public right of way, the Director shall refer applications to the Architectural Review Board for review. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). 2)The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective standards adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council or the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i). If such objective standards are repealed, an application shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. 3)The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. h)Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings 1)A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning and Transportation Commission. For WCF installations in the public right of way, the Director shall refer applications to the Architectural Review Board for review. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). 2)The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) can be made, and the proposed WCF complies with the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all objective standards adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the City Council or the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)., and If the City Council repeals all objective standards, an application shall not be granted unless, in addition to the other requirements of this section, all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. 3)The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. i)Generally Applicable Development Standards Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 27     9 027120324 Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: 1)Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; 2)Shall be screened from public view; 3)When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure; 4)Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; 5)An antenna, base station, or tower shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area, such as the use of a monopine design; 6)Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49; 7)Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; 8)Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and 9)A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. j)Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director, City Council, or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: 1)Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. 2)As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. 3)Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 28     10 027120324 4)Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 5)Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. 6)Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. 7)Subject to city uses. Any permit to install or utilize poles or conduit in the public rights- of-way is subject to the city’s prior right to use, maintain, expand, replace or remove from use such facilities in the reasonable exercise of its governmental or proprietary powers. Such permit is further subject to the city’s right to construction, maintain, and modify streets, sidewalks, and other improvements in the public rights-of-way. The city, in its sole discretion, may require removal or relocation of a permittee’s equipment, at permittee’s sole cost and expense, if necessary to accommodate a city use. 8)Replacement. Where feasible, as new technology becomes available, the applicant shall place above-ground equipment below ground and replace equipment remaining above-ground with smaller equipment, as determined by volume. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals for such replacement. 9)Permit length. WCFs permits shall be valid for the time provided in Section 18.42.110(n), except that a permit shall automatically expire after twelve months from the date of approval if within such twelve month period, the applicant has not obtained all necessary permits to commence construction. The director may, without a hearing, extend such time for a maximum period of twelve additional months only, upon application filed with him or her before the expiration of the twelve-month limit. k) Exceptions 1)The decision-making authority may grant exceptions to objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or any provision of this Section 18.42.110, upon finding that: A.The proposed WCF complies with the requirements of this Section 18.42.110 and any other requirements adopted by the City Council to the greatest extent feasible; and either B.As applied to a proposed WCF, the provision(s) from which exception is sought would deprive the applicant of rights guaranteed by federal law, state law, or both; or Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 29     11 027120324 C.Denial of the application as proposed would violate federal law, state law, or both. 2)An applicant must request an exception at the time an application is initially submitted for a WCF permit under this Section 18.42.110. The request must include both the specific provision(s) from which exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. Any request for exception after the City has deemed an application complete constitutes a material change to the proposed WCF and shall be considered a new application. 3)If the applicant seeks an exception from objective standards adopted by City Council resolution or generally applicable development standards, the Director may refer the application to the Architectural Review Board for recommendation on whether the application complies with such standards to the greatest extent feasible. 43)The applicant shall have the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s), using the evidentiary standards applicable to the law at issue. The Ccity shall have the right to hire independent consultants, at the applicant’s expense, to evaluate the issues raised by the exception request and to submit rebuttal evidence where applicable. l)Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new WCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. m)Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this section. n)Expiration Except as otherwise provided in the permit or in a lease or license agreement with the City of Palo Alto, WCF permits shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of approval. An applicant may seek extensions of an approved WCF permit in increments of no more than ten years and no sooner than twelve months prior to the expiration of the permit. The Director shall approve an extension request upon finding that that applicant has complied with all conditions of approval for the WCF permit and will comply with all other requirements applicable to WCFs at the time the extension is granted. Prior to issuing a decision on an extension request, the Director may seek additional studies and information to be prepared at the applicant’s expense. Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 30     12 027120324 SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be of no further force or effect as of June 10, 2027, or unless repealed earlier by the Council. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment in that this Ordinance simply clarifies existing local regulations. INTRODUCED: MAY 19, 2025 PASSED: JUNE 9, 2025 AYES: BURT, LAUING, LU, LYTHCOTT-HAIMS, RECKDAHL, STONE, VEENKER NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney or designee Director of Planning and Community Environment Docusign Envelope ID: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 31     Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 8DE517EC-EF9A-4596-B46B-F576F16C8176 Status: Completed Subject: ORD 5655 - Wireless Communications Facilities Source Envelope: Document Pages: 12 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Christine Prior AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov IP Address: 165.225.242.87 Record Tracking Status: Original 6/12/2025 7:36:30 AM Holder: Christine Prior Christine.Prior@PaloAlto.gov Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: Docusign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Aylin Bilir Aylin.Bilir@paloalto.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 6/12/2025 7:39:45 AM Viewed: 6/12/2025 9:35:48 AM Signed: 6/12/2025 9:40:52 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via Docusign Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov Director, Planning and Development Services City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 6/12/2025 9:40:54 AM Viewed: 6/12/2025 9:47:47 AM Signed: 6/12/2025 9:48:13 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via Docusign Ed Shikada Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov Ed Shikada City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 6/12/2025 9:48:14 AM Viewed: 6/12/2025 11:51:32 AM Signed: 6/12/2025 11:51:40 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via Docusign Ed Lauing Ed.Lauing@paloalto.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 67.188.59.65 Sent: 6/12/2025 11:51:42 AM Viewed: 6/12/2025 2:04:42 PM Signed: 6/12/2025 2:05:15 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via Docusign Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 32     Signer Events Signature Timestamp Mahealani Ah Yun Mahealani.AhYun@paloalto.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 6/12/2025 2:05:17 PM Viewed: 6/13/2025 1:34:14 PM Signed: 6/13/2025 1:34:28 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via Docusign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 6/12/2025 7:39:45 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 6/13/2025 1:34:14 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 6/13/2025 1:34:28 PM Completed Security Checked 6/13/2025 1:34:28 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Item 2. Attachment A - Ordinance 5655     Packet Pg. 33     1 Resolution No. 9873 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. a. On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9825, establishing objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) on Streetlight and Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights-of-Way. b. On June 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9847, amending the standards to delete inadvertently added language, clarify existing standards, and adopt an interim setback from public schools. c. On August 12, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 9855, amending the standards to address a conflict with other City standards and to clarify the allowable height for WCFs on Streetlights and Wood Utility Poles. d. The City Council wishes to consolidate the existing objective standards previously described in Resolution 9855 for clarity and update the objective standards in order to address Council specified location, design, and other preferences in the City for WCF on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles. SECTION 2. Objective Standards for WCFs on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights-of-Way Amended. The City Council hereby adopts the objective standards in Exhibit 1, attached to and incorporated into this resolution, for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles. The City Council hereby adopts Exhibit 2 that illustrates the Residential Zone of Exclusion and Exhibit 3 that illustrates the City of Palo Alto roadway network and locations of special setbacks relative to generalized zoning designations for the sole purpose of supplementing the objective standards in Exhibit 1. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this resolution or the attached standards is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the resolution and exhibits. The Council hereby declares that it should have DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 34     2 adopted the resolution and exhibits, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. Environmental Review. The Council finds that this resolution is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it does not authorize the construction of Wireless Communication Facilities in any locations where such facilities are not already permitted; therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The resolution is further exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301, 15302, 15303 and 15305 because it represents part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing minor alterations to existing facilities or small structures. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 16, 2019 AYES: CORMACK, DUBOIS, FILSETH, KNISS, KOU, TANAKA NOES: FINE ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Development Services DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 35     3 Exhibit 1 Objective Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Rights of Way on Streetlight Poles and Wood Utility Poles A Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) proposed for the public right of way must comply with the applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and all of the following objective standards. In each instance where a proposed facility is unable to comply with the City’s objective standards, a WCF Exception may be requested and evaluated in accordance with this resolution and PAMC Section 18.42.110(k).1The following standards apply to both streetlight poles and wood utility poles, unless otherwise noted. WCF SITING STANDARDS Permitted Zoning Districts WCF placement is permitted in non-residential zoning districts. Public School Boundary A WCF shall not be placed within 600 feet of a parcel containing a public school. No WCF Exception shall be granted allowing a WCF to be placed closer than 300 feet to a parcel containing a public school. Residential Zone of Exclusion (this standard applies to WCF Exception requests to locate in residential districts) No WCF shall be placed within the public right of way in the area between the street centerline and the central fifty percent (50%) of the immediately adjacent parcel’s front lot line. The central fifty percent standard shall be based on the parcel’s lot width2. For corner lots, the central fifty percent standard along the street lot line3 shall be based on the parcel’s lot depth4. Exhibit 2 illustrates this requirement. Residential Roadways (this standard applies to WCF Exception requests to locate in residential districts) Any request for a WCF Exception involving placement of a WCF within a residential zoning district shall prioritize WCF placement on the following roadway types (See Exhibit 3):  Expressways  Arterials  Residential Arterials  Roadways identified with a Special Setback (including collector and local streets). 1 The City may hire an independent consultant to evaluate WCF Exceptions at applicant’s expense. 2 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(93) 3 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(91)(E) 4 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(87) DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 36     4 In each instance above, the priority shall be for placement of a WCF most distant from residential property. An additional WCF Exception request must be made to place a WCF on a collector or a local roadway that does not have an identified special setback. Building or Structure Setback A WCF shall not be placed closer than 20 feet from any building used for occupancy in any zoning district. Distance Between WCFs A WCF shall not be placed less than 600 feet away from another WCF. This requirement does not preclude WCFs collocating on the same structure where otherwise allowed. Intersection Corners5 A WCF shall not be placed less than 20 feet away from any roadway intersection. An intersection is measured from the start of the curb radius. Scenic Routes6 A WCF shall not be placed along an identified scenic route. Historic Districts, Sites, and Structures A WCF shall not be placed within a listed historic district, nor immediately adjacent to a parcel with an historic structure, nor immediately adjacent to an historic site, as those terms are defined by PAMC Section 16.49.020. A WCF shall not be placed in a potential historic district, or immediately adjacent to a potential historic structure or site, where the application for historic designation was filed with the City prior to the filing of a WCF application, until a final decision has been made regarding that pending historic designation. WCF DESIGN STANDARDS Underground Design (Preferred Option) Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault. The associated antenna(s) shall be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment and include information detailing why the proposed dimensions are required. Maximum vault size shall not exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2-inches x 5 feet 7-inches or 260 cubic feet, excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. 5 Gateway intersections are identified on Map L-4 in the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Scenic routes are identified in Policy L-9.1 in the Comprehensive Plan. DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 37     5 Top-Mounted Design (Secondary Option) Radio equipment and the associated antenna(s) shall be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole. Minimal Sunshield Design Use of this design requires a WCF Exception Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. The associated antenna(s) shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. Sunshields shall be attached at least 12 feet above ground level and, when located on wood utility poles, shall not interfere with the identified communication space. Existing Signage Design Use of this design requires a WCF Exception Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing signage under the following conditions: i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not exceed the dimensions of the sign in height and width, nor 4 inches in depth, including any required mounting bracket. ii) In no event shall WCF equipment obscure or interfere with the visibility or functioning of the signage. The associated antenna(s) shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. WCF Antenna and Shroud Dimensions (Diameter / Height) Antennas shall have the smallest size possible to achieve the coverage objective. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15 inches at their widest. For Streetlight Poles: The maximum WCF height shall not exceed 3 feet (or 5.5 feet for top-mounted designs) from the top of the streetlight pole that meets the City standards for the proposed location. The associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. For Wood Utility Poles: In no circumstance shall the total height of a pole and all WCF equipment exceed 55 feet. For wood utility poles carrying power lines, replacement poles shall be the minimum height necessary to provide GO 95 mandated clearance between WC equipment and power lines. For wood utility poles without power lines, any WCF equipment shall not increase the height of the pole by 5.5 feet when compared with the height of the existing pole. DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 38     6 The associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the top of the pole if wider than the pole. WCF Design Quality Antennas and/or equipment at the top of the pole shall be covered by a single integrated shroud and “antenna skirt” designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces and between the shroud or skirt and the top of the pole. All components external to the pole shall have an integral color or shall be painted to match the color and/or materials of the pole. Equipment shall be oriented to face in either of the directions of travel in the right of way and shall not face or extend toward private property or the curb line. WCF Equipment Adjustment For Streetlight Poles: Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to a streetlight pole at a height of 2 feet below the light mast or higher. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cubic feet, nor shall the total volume of such equipment and any shrouding exceed 2.6 cubic feet per streetlight pole. For Wood Utility Poles: Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to the top of the pole or on a cross arm or brace protruding from the pole the minimum extent necessary to comply with safety standards, including GO 95. Such cross arm shall be placed as high on the pole as technically feasible. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cubic feet nor shall the total volume of such equipment exceed 2.6 cubic feet per wood utility pole. Curb Clearances Any WCF attachments placed below 16 feet above ground level shall not be placed closer than 18 inches to the curb, nor shall they extend over the sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). All WCF equipment shall maintain at least 3 feet from any curb cut. WCF Wires and Cabling For Streetlight Poles: All wires and cabling shall be routed entirely underground and within the pole and any attached shroud. For Wood Utility Poles: All wires and cabling to equipment shall be within the shroud or shall be within conduit. All conduit shall be mounted flush to the pole. DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 39     7 Safety Signs Safety signs shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. Power Disconnects For Streetlight Poles: Power disconnects shall be labeled and placed in a vault near the base of the pole. For Wood Utility Poles: Power disconnects shall be labeled and placed on the wood pole or in a vault near the base of the pole. Ground Mounted Equipment Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. Existing Pole Locations A WCF shall utilize an existing streetlight pole or wood utility pole location. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through a City Public Works/Utilities pole placement application. WCF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Pole Replacement For Streetlight Poles: An existing streetlight pole proposed for a WCF installation shall be replaced with a new pole.7 For Wood Utility Poles: An existing wood utility pole proposed for a WCF installation shall be replaced with a new pole.8 Landscaping Replacement Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Landscape Screening A WCF shall be placed where existing street tree foliage or new street tree or amenity tree foliage within 35 feet of the WCF provides interruption of direct views of the WCF. 7 Replacement streetlight poles must meet the currently applicable City standards for the pole, including foundation and bolt designs, conduit separation, aluminum material, color, width, height, light mast characteristics (examples: orientation, design, height, color temperature and photometrics), and the presence/absence of decorative features. Replacement poles will conform to Public Works Department (PWD) style guidelines and Utilities-Electrical (CPAU) standards where the City has adopted standards and will match the pole being replaced where no standards exist. Standard specifications for streetlight poles in the City can be obtained from the Utilities-Electrical (CPAU) and Public Works (PWD) Departments. 8 Replacement wood utility poles must meet the currently applicable City standards for the pole, including width, height, color, material, structural capacity, and GO 95 compliance. Replacement poles shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimension than is necessary for the proper functioning of the pole with all attachments. Existing pole functionality shall be maintained, such as in regard to electrical lines, climbing space, light masts (examples: orientation, design, height, color temperature and photometrics), and provision of communication space, unless existing functionality, such as transformers, can be relocated with the approval of the Utilities-Electrical Department (CPAU). Standard specifications for pole replacement in the City can be obtained from CPAU. For wood utility poles carrying power lines, replacement poles shall be the minimum height necessary to provide GO-95 mandated clearance between WCF equipment and power lines. DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 40     8 Noise9 Noise from a WCF shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. City Marketing Banners WCF installations shall not require any changes in the City’s existing banner marketing program. WCF EXCEPTIONS A WCF applicant may file an application(s) containing a request for one or more WCF Exceptions to the objective standards set forth in this resolution or any other provision of PAMC Section 18.42.110. The request for a WCF Exception(s) does not exempt a WCF from complying with other objective wireless administrative standards adopted by City Council resolution or any other provision of PAMC Section 18.42.110. Each WCF Exception request must be made at the time an application is submitted and must include both the specific provision(s) from which the exception is sought and the basis of the request, including all supporting evidence on which the applicant relies. The applicant has the burden of proving that federal law, state law, or both, compel the decision-making authority to grant the requested exception(s). The WCF Exception must satisfy the requirements of PAMC Section 18.42.110(k) and demonstrate why the standard is infeasible. Failure to identify all required WCF Exceptions upon application submittal may result in application denial. No WCF Exception may be granted that allows a WCF to be placed: 1) within 300 feet of a parcel containing a public school, 2) within 20 feet of a habitable residential building in a residential zoning district, 3) on wood utility poles within the Residential Zone of Exclusion described in this resolution, or 4) in an alley within a residential zoning district. 9 In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn to exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. In residential areas with a Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 dB or more. DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 41     144.2' 100.1' 70.0' 144.2' 60.0' 100.1' 30.0' 100.1' 60.0' 160.0' 139.1' 160.0' ' 64.9' 100.0' 100.0' 64.9' 100.0' This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 0'53' Ex h i b i t 2 WC F RZO E D I A G R A M CITYOF PALOALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT 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 rrivera, 2019-11-25 17:25:35 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) ROAD CENTERLINE RZOE - central 50% of parcel's lot width 50% of 139.1 lot width = 69.55 ft RZOE - central 50% of parcel's lot width RZOE - central 50% of parcel's lot width RZOE - central 50% of parcel's lot depth 35 f t 50% of 70 ft lot width = 35 ft ROAD CENTERLINE CURB LIP PARCEL/PROPERTY LINE 30 f t 30.0' 30 f t 30 f t RZO E - c e n t r a l 50 % o f pa r c e l ' s l o t wi d t h RZO E - c e n t r a l 50 % o f pa r c e l ' s l o t wi d t h RZO E - c e n t r a l 50 % o f pa r c e l ' s l o t wi d t h RO A D CE N T E R L I N E RZO E - c e n t r a l 50 % o f pa r c e l ' s l o t wi d t h Residential Zone of Exclusion (RZOE) (this standard applies to WCF Exception requests to locate in residential districts) No WCF shall be placed within the public right of way in the area between the street centerline and the central fifty percent (50%) of the immediately adjacent parcel’s front lot line. The central fifty percent standard shall be based on the parcel’s lot width. For corner lots, the central fifty percent standard along the street lot line shall be based on the parcel’s lot depth. Fr o n t S e t b a c k L i n e 139.1'100.1' 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 60 . 0 ' 70.0' 64.9'64.9' 30 . 2 4 ft 32.44 ft 50.05 ft32.45 ft 30 . 2 4 ft 35 . 0 7 ft 69.38 ft 30 . 2 4 ft 50.39 ft32.44 ft 32.45 ft 69.55 ft DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2.Attachment B - ResolutionNo. 9873 Wireless ObjectiveDesign Standards(Repealed)   Packet Pg. 42     24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 2424 24 24 15 24 24 101010 10 10 24 20 10 1515 15 15 15 10 10 10 1524 15 15 15 15 15 24 24 24 24 20 2424 50 30 30 50 50 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 24 24 24 50 24 50 50 50 50 30 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 50 50 5050 50 50 50 50 50 242424 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 30 25 50 24 24 24 24 24 7777 6 6 6 77 77 77 7 7 77 77 77 24 25 6 24 24 24 24 2424 24 2424 24 24 24 2424 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 3535 351010 24 10 53 204 418 20 10351035 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 24 30 7 7 7 17 24 30 24 24 24 30 177 7 17 7 17 30 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 40 40 24 24 24 24 24 24 40 40 40 24 24 24 24 24 24 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424242424 24 24 24 24 24 60 60 60 30 30 40 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 6060 60 60 50 50 40 40 24 24 24 24 242424 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 24 30 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 2430 30 24 24 16 8 24 16 8 16 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 15 30 24 20 25 24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 24 24 20 20 24 25 25 25 25 2525 252020 2525 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2424 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 50 50 50 50 24 24 Special ConditionsSpecial C onditions Special Condit ions ACK_FOR_MIXED d e l a s Pu l gas d H i l l R o ad J u n i pe r o Serra B o u l evard Page M i l l R o ad Ar as t rade ro Road E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n An t o n i o A v e n u e Cha r l e s t on Roa d Or e gon Exp r e s swa y Mid d lef ie ld Road University Avenue e w a y 1 0 1 A l ma S t r e e t El Camino Real A l p i n e R o a d F o o t h i ll E x p r e s s w a y H i g h Hillview East Bayshore West Bayshore Fabian Central Expressway Sand Hill Road Embarcadero Road Fa b i a n W a y Newell Rd California St Latham St C Pu Middle Ave Welch Coyot e H i l l Rd Hansen Way Matadero Ave Loma Verde Ave Colorado Ave Park Blvd Birch N. California Ave Amaranta El Ca mino Way Lytton Ave Hamilton Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Channing Ave Guinda Stanford Av e Waverley St. Churchill Ave tPeer C outts Serra S t Arbore tum G a l v ez Park B lvd Amph i t h e a t r e P k w y Charleston RdAlma St Los A ltos A ve Hillview Ave Old Page M i l l Rd o l d e nantes R d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Residential Zone Districts Non- Residential Zone Districts Public Facilities/Open Space Zone Districts Special Setback Frontages Local Collector Residential Arterial Arterial Expressway City Jurisdictional Limits 0'2670' Ex h i b i t 3 Ro a d N e t w o r k a n d S p e c i a l S e t b a c k s wi t h R e s i d e n t i a l , C o m m e r c i a l , an d Pu b l i c F a c i l i t i e s Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s v. 2 0 1 9 1 1 2 5 CITYOF PALOALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT 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 rrivera, 2019-11-25 13:00:40 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) DocuSign Envelope ID: ECCACC0E-18AC-4D5E-9AEE-0C930810BD0A Item 2.Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873Wireless Objective Design Standards(Repealed)   Packet Pg. 43     Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: ECCACC0E18AC4D5E9AEE0C930810BD0A Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: RESO 9873 WCF Resolution with Exhibit 1.docx, RESO 9872 Exhibit 2.pdf, RESO 98... Source Envelope: Document Pages: 10 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Kim Lunt AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 1/7/2020 1:32:22 PM Holder: Kim Lunt kimberly.lunt@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Aylin Bilir Aylin.Bilir@CityofPaloAlto.org Deputy City Attorney Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 1/7/2020 1:36:35 PM Viewed: 1/7/2020 1:40:55 PM Signed: 1/7/2020 4:08:48 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Interim Director Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 1/7/2020 4:08:51 PM Resent: 1/13/2020 8:54:57 AM Resent: 1/15/2020 8:58:56 AM Resent: 1/16/2020 11:39:30 AM Viewed: 1/16/2020 12:31:49 PM Signed: 1/16/2020 12:32:05 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Ed Shikada ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 1/16/2020 12:32:09 PM Viewed: 1/16/2020 5:51:30 PM Signed: 1/16/2020 5:51:37 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Eric Filseth eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Mayor Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 108.169.4.229 Sent: 1/16/2020 5:51:41 PM Viewed: 1/16/2020 11:04:09 PM Signed: 1/16/2020 11:04:20 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 44     Signer Events Signature Timestamp Beth Minor Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org City Clerk City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 1/16/2020 11:04:23 PM Viewed: 1/17/2020 7:52:37 AM Signed: 1/17/2020 7:52:54 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 1/16/2020 11:04:23 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 1/17/2020 7:52:37 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 1/17/2020 7:52:54 AM Completed Security Checked 1/17/2020 7:52:54 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps Item 2. Attachment B - Resolution No. 9873 Wireless Objective Design Standards (Repealed)     Packet Pg. 45     ATTACHMENT C In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.020. 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 C - Findings for Approval for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 46     GENERALLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Unless the City Council has adopted more specific standards, and except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest antennae, radio, and associated equipment, as measured by volume, technically feasible to achieve a network objective; (2) Shall be screened from public view; (3) When attached to an existing structure, shall be shrouded or screened using materials or colors found on existing structure; (4) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (5) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area, such as the use of a monopine design; (6) Shall not be attached on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49; (7) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend no more than fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (8) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed beyond sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (9) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. Item 2. Attachment C - Findings for Approval for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 47     ATTACHMENT D In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director, City Council, or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (7) Subject to city uses. Any permit to install or utilize poles or conduit in the public rights- of-way is subject to the city’s prior right to use, maintain, expand, replace or remove from use such facilities in the reasonable exercise of its governmental or proprietary powers. Such permit is further subject to the city’s right to construction, maintain, and modify streets, sidewalks, and other improvements in the Item 2. Attachment D - Standard Conditions of Approval for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 48     public rights-of-way. The city, in its sole discretion, may require removal or relocation of a permittee’s equipment, at permittee’s sole cost and expense, if necessary to accommodate a city use. Item 2. Attachment D - Standard Conditions of Approval for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 49     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST April 2019 Page 1 of 7 TIER 2 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIIES PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST In-person appointments are required to submit all applications. Appointments can be scheduled by calling the Planning Division at (650) 329-2442 or scheduled in-person at the City‘s Development Center, located at 285 Hamilton Avenue. The following information is required for the review of Tier 2 Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.42.110 and proposed for location in the public right-of-way. Instructions: Complete and submit all items listed in the checklist below that are applicable to the application. The information identified below must be provided in order to accept the application as complete for review. If an item does not apply, write “N/A” (not applicable). The Planning Department is available to answer applicant questions in advance of application submittal and can be contacted at 650- 329-2442. Project Location(s)/Address(es): Project Description (include Applicant name and Carrier name): Application Basic Information : Y, N, or N/A Materials contain more than one wireless communication facility and the applications are batched. Y, N, or N/A Materials show one or more wireless communication facility designs that meet all of the City’s rules, regulations, and Objective Standards (Refer to City Council Action on December ). Y, N, or N/A Materials request one or more WCF exception requests to the City’s rules, regulations, or Objective Standards. Y, N, or N/A Materials show one or more wireless communication facilities that qualify as a “small wireless facility,” as defined by any valid regulations adopted by the FCC. Y, N, or N/A Materials show one or more wireless communication facilities that do not qualify as a “small wireless facility,” as defined by any valid regulations adopted by the FCC. Y, N, or N/A Materials show one or more wireless communication facilities that are subject to the applicant’s Master License Agreement. Y, N, or N/A Materials show one or more wireless communication facilities that are not subject to a Master License Agreement. Additional copies of application materials may be required if the application is referred after intake for review by the Architectural Review Board, City Council,  Application Forms. application forms and required application materials necessary to initiate and process all entitlement and all permit reviews and decisions shall be submitted so that they can be processed concurrently. Application forms include the Planning Application with original wet signatures of the applicant and property owner(s). The Planning Application Number will be assigned at application intake. Copies of completed additional application forms are also required, as applicable, including but not limited to: Building Permit Application, Excavating and Grading Permit Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 50     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST December 2019 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit (commonly referred to as Exhibit G) and a Utility Map Request will have likely been submitted to the City’s Utilities Department as part of the applicant team gathering information necessary to investigate siting and prepare project plans and do not constitute entitlement or permit filing. List the numbers and dates submitted for each applicable application and permit: •Planning Application Number & Date Submitted: ____________________________________ •Building Permit Application Number & Date Submitted: ______________________________ •Excavation and Grading Permit Application Number & Date Submitted: __________________ •Street Work Permit Application Number & Date Submitted: ___________________________ •Encroachment Permit Application Number & Date Submitted: _________________________ •Insurance Certificate Submittal Information & Date Submitted: ________________________ •Electrical Permit Application Number & Date Submitted: _____________________________ •Other Application Number(s) & Date(s) Submitted: __________________________________ •Master License Agreement Exhibit Tracking Information & Date Submitted: ______________ •  One (1) hardcopy of this TIER 2 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIIES PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST completed and  One (1) hardcopy of the Cost Recovery Form  Application Fees/Deposits during application intake. For batched applications, an invoice shall be prepared and the fees/deposits paid for each proposed location, unless the applicant coordinates with the City to prepare a mutually agreed upon separate cost recovery agreement. Consistent with the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule, a separate deposit(s) may also be necessary to submit after application intake to cover the cost of the City’s use of consultants to conduct independent review of  Application numbers proposed location and/or within 1,500 feet of the proposed WCF location on either public or private property: One (1) electronic copy of all application materials  Three (3) hardcopies of a Radio Frequency Report discusses and confirms the wireless communication facility planned compliance with the FCC regulations. The report shall include a list of the proposed equipment models, frequency bands, power, azimuths, minimum and maximum downtilts, distances to ground and adjacent single and multiple-story buildings, clarification if there are any other nearby wireless facilities considered as part of the analysis of cumulative conditions, a description of the standards, equations, and other methodology utilized, color maps and/or statements of distances and zones for public and occupational exclusion and/or exposure limits, and required signage and any other measures necessary for the facility to operate in compliance with FCC standards. The City may elect to have  One (1) hardcopy of the manufacturer’s specifications  Three (3) color hardcopies of existing and proposed coverage and capacity maps  Three (3) hardcopies of the completed “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance - APPENDIX A Optional Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 51     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST December 2019 Page 3 of 7 Checklist for Local Government To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded” Three (3) hardcopies of the completed “HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE CHECKLIST”  Three (3) hardcopies of the completed “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ACCESSMENT WORKSHEET”  One (1) hardcopy of a list of all of the carrier’s existing or entitled antenna locations the street address and latitude/longitude coordinates, within the City limits. Each site listed should One (1) color hardcopy of the location map  One (1) color and materials board  Three (3) hardcopies of a Tree Protection Report (TPR) and arborist assessment. Report shall be required for any new facility or construction within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of a protected and/or designated tree, and may be required for others, including street trees as deemed necessary by the City Arborist. The report shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual and shall be prepared by an ISA certified Arborist. See Overview of Regulated Trees. If required,  Twelve (12) color hardcopies of a project description minimum: • the existing and proposed use at the proposed location, • the proposed wireless carrier, • the purpose and goals for the wireless facility (e.g. network design, frequency bands, new technology use), • the proposed scope of work, including work above and below ground, • the dimensions and volume of the antenna and the dimensions and volume of other additional equipment and the overall facility, • the efforts taken to minimize visual impacts of the proposed design (e.g. substantial setback from major roads, presence of trees, stealth design, slim line monopole, reducing the number of proposed facilities, increasing distances from nearby windows and other openings; placing some equipment in an underground vault, avoidance of scenic corridors or gateways, avoidance of nearby historic buildings), • map and the pole numbers for the alternative project locations considered, including in regard to network design, search ring/polygons, and specific site selection criteria, as well as a description of the reasons why these alternatives were not selected as the WCF proposed, • graphic portrayal and description of the proposed design and the alternative designs considered, • the efforts to locate at existing wireless facilities, • the basis of how the project qualifies as a Tier 2 WCF under PAMC Section 18.42.110, • identification of the underlying Master License Agreement, if any, • statement that clarifies if the application materials contain more than one wireless communication facility, • statement that clarifies that either the application materials show one or more wireless communication facilities that meet all of the City’s rules, regulations, and Objective Standards or a detailed statement detailing any and all requested WCF exceptions to any of the City’s rules, regulations, or Objective Standards (See PAMC Section 18.42.110(k) for more information on requesting exceptions. The WCF exception(s) must satisfy the requirements of PAMC Section 18.42.110(k) and demonstrate why the rule, regulation, or Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 52     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST December 2019 Page 4 of 7 • • clarification if one or more wireless communication facilities will generate any noise, • clarification on how any future expansion, including the addition of 5G equipment if not currently proposed, would be designed in accordance with applicable laws and the City’s Objective Standards, • list of all wireless communication facilities proposed in application, including the applicant site identification number, closest adjacent APN, address of closest adjacent APN, existing zoning district, existing underground utility district number (if any), existing pole number,  Twelve (12) hardcopies of a reduced-size (minimum of 11” x 17” and maximum 18” x 24”) set of bound project plans that include a north arrow, a graphic scale, and a notation of the drawing scale as either at 1/8” or 1/4” scale. All sheets shall be oriented in the same direction. Plans shall be legible and internally consistent. Plans shall include all information necessary for permitting and construction, as they will be the same plans submitted for Electrical permits, Street Work Permits, and/or Encroachment Permits. Applicants are encouraged to provide additional information where helpful. Project data and site information listing the wireless communication facility(ties) proposed in the application, applicant site identification number(s), latitude/longitude coordinates, elevation(s), closest adjacent parcels, address(es) of closest adjacent parcels, historic status of closest adjacent parcels, roadway type at the proposed location (expressway, arterial, residential arterial, collector, or local roadway), existing zoning district(s), existing underground utility district number (if any), existing pole number(s), and a brief description of work. Vicinity map showing the location of the proposed wireless communication facility within the City of Palo Alto. Location map showing north arrow, scale, parcel lines, and the distance and location of scenic routes, residence(s), schools, and other WCF facilities within 600 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility. Stamped and signed site survey of the wireless communication facility site area and pole completed within the last 12 months serving as the basis for other plan sheets. Stamped and signed structural/loading calculations completed for the proposed wireless communication facility design. Separate and detailed existing and proposed site/landscape/utility plans of the wireless communication facility site area including the following information: • North arrow (orient all sheets in the same direction), • Scale (1/8 minimum), • Dimensioned property lines and location of the right of way, including streets, paths, curb lines, sidewalks, planting strips, driveways, curb cuts, and utility lines, • Dimensioned residential zone of exclusion area, if the WCF is proposed in a residential zoning district, • Existing and proposed above ground and underground site improvements in the right-of- way within 50 feet of the proposed wireless communication facility, including signs, light fixtures, bicycle parking, trash and recycling (including proposed containers or related Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 53     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST December 2019 Page 5 of 7 gas, electric, water), communication facilities (fiber optic, conduit and any other facilities), and similar. (Applicants must submit a Utility Map Request form in order to receive existing underground utilities information), • Easements, encumbrances, and/or roadway special setback lines, • Proposed species and size for any new trees and the location, species, size, dripline area, and any necessary tree protection zone (TPZ) for all existing trees within 50 feet of the site area, including trees on neighboring properties that overhang the wireless communication facility site area. Dimension the distance from trees to the work area when the tree is located closer than 10’ to proposed construction, • Footprint of all buildings and structures on adjacent parcels with distances from the proposed WCF indicated, • Creeks or waterways on or adjacent to the site, • Azimuth direction(s), • Distance to closest habitable/occupied structure for each azimuth proposed or distance to closest habitable/occupied structures in each direction if an omni-directional antenna is proposed, • Pole quadrants showing proposed and existing risers, location of climbing space and/or working space and location of proposed and existing attached equipment, • Single line diagram, equipment grounding diagrams, and panel schedule, • Plan showing all proposed conduits or substructures, location of directional bores, receiving and exit pits indicated, size(s) of bore pits, boring profiles at utility crossings, location, size and extent of trenching, location and size of potholing, and volume of soil to be disturbed in cubic feet. Additional information to include in project plans: • Information necessary to determine GO 95 compliance, • Model number and manufacturer dimensioned diagrams of proposed equipment, mounting brackets, shrouding, underground vaults and associated equipment, • Manufacturer’s pole specifications, decorative features (if any) and details, • Equipment volume information summary with dimensioned front and side elevations that can be used to confirm equipment volume. Project elevations, sections, and schematic details: • Elevations showing all existing conditions, including all existing pole features and attachments and all proposed pole features and attachments. Elevations shall include all sides of the wireless communication facility, all existing and proposed signage and lighting, notation of grade elevation from where the maximum height is measured, notations of the type, colors, materials and finish for all project elements, notations of the height and dimensions for all project elements, and notations of the point of service for power, fiber, and similar, • Illustrative vertical section including foundation to maximum height in context with surrounding site features, such as curb lines, sidewalks, electrical lines, communication lines, landscaping features, trees, and underground structures (drawing should be at a minimum of ½” = 1’ scale), • Illustrative horizontal section(s) showing the attachments and clearances for equipment and conduit mounted to pole(s), • Schematic details demonstrating the quality and nature of the wireless communication Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 54     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST December 2019 Page 6 of 7 materials connect. Examples include: mounting of the equipment to poles and wires and cabling behind shrouds or internal to the pole, • Details, colors, and text of all new safety, power disconnect, and other signage and location/method of attachment. Color photographs: Photos of the existing site showing the relationship of the proposed wireless communication facility to adjacent buildings and to the neighborhood. Color visual simulation(s): Visual simulations prepared to scale comparing existing and proposed conditions and context utilizing views consistent with the existing and proposed elevations. Lighting plan (if any changes to existing lighting are proposed or required) showing photometric drawings including foot-candle numbers and catalog cut sheets of proposed exterior fixtures. Urban Forestry Division Standard Tree Protection Plan Sheet (T-1) filled out and signed by the property owner or applicant. When required, include completed Tree Protection Report(s) as Sheet T-2 and T-3. Current City Standard Specifications sheets: DWGs 401, 402, 403, 404, and 405. Standard Public Works Engineering Services Standard Sheets (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Standard Conditions). Does Applicant seek an exception from any of the City’s rules, regulations, or Objective Standards applicable to the application? Yes No (If “Yes,” provide a description of the specific exceptions sought and the manner in which the application complies with all applicable rules, regulations, and Objective Standards to the greatest extent feasible.) Does Applicant allege that strict application on a City rule, regulation, or Objective Standard or failure to approve this application will violate preemptive state or federal law? Yes No (If “Yes,” provide all documentation to support allegation.) Certification under Penalty of Perjury I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) at (location), California. Name (print): Signature: Relationship to the Applicant of Record: Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 55     TIER 2 WCF PROPOSED FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST December 2019 Page 7 of 7 Please coordinate with Planning staff regarding the following items: • One (1) hardcopy and one (1) electronic copy of a Community Meeting notice and affidavit containing proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting and a summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting, per PAMC Section 18.42.100(d)(7). This item may be submitted up to 15 days after initial application submittal. • One (1) electronic copy of photos showing notice board sign installation. During the intake appointment, the applicant will receive a notice board sign from the City for each proposed wireless communication facility location. The applicant shall affix a site plan, elevation, and streetscape image of the proposed wireless facility design to the notice board sign. The notice board sign shall be prominently displayed so that it can be viewed from the sidewalk or elsewhere in the public right of way and shall remain in place until any entitlement decision is effective. Photographs of the notice board sign installed at the proposed location shall be submitted to the City within three (3) days of application submittal. Item 2. Attachment E - Submittal Checklist for Tier 2 and 3 WCFs in Public ROW     Packet Pg. 56     Special Street Light St yle Placement Guide APPROVED 3-12-20 Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 57     El C a m i n o R e a l Mid d l e fi e l d R d Alm a S t Park B l Ca l i f o r n i a A v e Pa g e M i l l R d Ara s t r a d e r o R d Char l e s t o n R d Ore g o n E x p y Colo r a d o A v e Mead o w D r Lom a V e r d e A v e Hw y 1 0 1 Embar c a d e r o R d Uni v e r s i t y A v e Lyt t o n A v e Cha n n i n g A v e EL CAMINO REAL CALIFORNIA-PARK DOWNTOWN Roadway lighting would use decorative pendant luminaires, similar to existing luminaires within the University Avenue underpass, and along portions of Alma street. The designated pedestrian scale light is the current “Washington” style post-top luminaire and pole. Decorative lighting would extend beyond the Downtown core along arterial roadways to gateway areas such as the Embarcadero/Alma overpass. Use of the roadway and pedestrian scale lighting recently installed on California Avenue would be extended to other streets in the neighborhood to compliment the pedestrian and transit oriented character of the area. This lighitng pair could also be used in the Midtown shopping and commercial area to improve the pedestrian shopping and strolling environment The pedestrian scale and roadway lighting installed at the Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real intersection would be utilized along El Camino Real to aid in creating a welcoming sidewalk environment for businesses, shoppers, and residents. Special Street Light Style Placement Guide N 1 2 2 3 1 3 The purpose of this guide is to define the spacial boundaries for the application of decorative roadway and pedestrian scale lighting. All lighting shown is currently installed at some locations within the corresponding proposed corridors and districts. Areas of the city not explicity designated on this guide would utilize city standard aluminum poles and mast arms with LED luminaires. Adopted: 6/4/2015 Item 2.Attachment F - Special Street LightStyle Placement Guide    Packet Pg. 58     EL CAMINO REAL1 Pole Lamp Color Pole/Head Part # Part # Color Code El Camino Real CP6563A-14Z-LAB C6563D-Z3WRN64A2NNNNA Custom RAL 7022 RTA30D8B4-** With Tenon Mount RN20-135W80LED4K-R-ACDR-LE3R-120/277-DMG-SMB-RCD-RAL 7022 Custom RAL 7022 Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 59     Palo Alto – El Camino Real Lumec 08-01-2018 Page 1 / 6 Qty 3 Luminaire RN20-135W80LED4K-T-ACDR-LE3R-UNIV-DMG-SMB-GRD- Description of Components: Hood: Injection die cast A360.1 aluminium dome, mechanically assembled on the luminaire housing. Guard: (GRD), In a round shape with 4 arms, this guard is welded to the technical ring. Housing: In a round shape, this housing is made of injection die cast A360.1 aluminium, complete with a weatherproof door giving a tool-free access to the ballast, without disconnection of wiring, mechanically assembled. This suspension system permits a full rotation of the luminaire in 90 degree increments. Access-Mechanism: Injection die cast A360.1 aluminium frame with latch and hinge, complete with cast-in security block for frame's open position. The mechanism shall offer tool-free access to the inside of the luminaire. An embedded memory-retentive gasket shall ensure weatherproofing. Light Engine: LEDgine composed of 5 main components: Globe / LED Module / Optical System / Heat Sink / Driver Electrical components are RoHS compliant. Heat Sink: Made of cast aluminum optimising the LEDs efficiency and life. Product does not use any cooling device with moving parts (only passive cooling device). Globe: (ACDR), Made of one-piece seamless injection-molded impact-resistant (DR) acrylic having an inner prismatic surface. Complete with a semi-prismatic house side shield and external glare softening prisms. The globe is mechanically assembled and sealed onto the lower part of the heat sink. EPA: 2.63 sq ft / weight: 55 lb (25 kg) Note: 3D image may not represent color or option selected. Logos above include link, click to access. #3142 / 1600.06Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 60     Palo Alto – El Camino Real Lumec 08-01-2018 Page 3 / 6 Configuration Qty 3 Bracket AC8-1A-R5-CAP1-SCRAL7022TX Description of Components: Arm: Shall be made from spun and tapered aluminum 6063-T4, tempered to T6 after welding. The tapered arm is formed into a vertically oriented ellipse of 4" (102mm) by 2 7/8" (73mm) welded onto a plate and mechanically assembled to central adaptor. The bracket end is of 2 3/8" (60mm) O.D. Decorative Element: Flat made of bent aluminum, 2" (51mm) wide, 0.375" (10mm) thick, mechanically assembled. Central Adaptor: Made of cast 356 aluminum, complete with a top decorative cap. Slip-fits 9" (229mm) over a 4" (102mm) outside diameter pole or tenon. Mechanically fastened to the pole or tenon. Bracket Options: (CAP1),Optional Pole Cap Note: The AC8 bracket meets the AASHTO 2001 standard specifications for structural support for luminaires. 32 lbs (14.5 kg), 3.87 ft² #3142 / 1600.06 Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 61     #3142 / 1600.06 Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 62     Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 63     CALIFORNIA-PARK2 Pole Lamp Color Pole/Head Part # Part # Color Code California Ave RSA12B4-4-** PDR-MSR-B01-LED-E1-T3-VMS5378PDGSD Dark Pla�num(DP) RSA25D6-4-** CPLS-55W32LED4K-G2-LE3-F-UNV-DMG-RCD-PH8-DP Dark Pla�num(DP) Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 64     MSA MESA LED 1-6 LightBARs Solid State LED DECORATIVE LUMINAIRE Invue SPECIFICATION FEATURES Construction HOUSING: Die-cast aluminum main housing and spider mount base maintain a minimum 0.125 wall thickness. Integral aluminum heat sink provides superior thermal heat transfer in +40°C ambient environments. DOOR ASSEMBLY: Top mounted, heavy wall, die- cast aluminum door maintains a nominal 0.125 thickness. Door includes a self-retaining interior hinge. GASKET: Continuous silicone gasket provided to seal housing door assembly and optic tray. LENS: Downlight lens is LED board integrated acrylic over- optics, each individually sealed for IP66 rating. HARDWARE: Four iinset fasteners on underside of housing provide access to luminaire interior. Concealed, stainless steel four bar hinge lock allows door to lock in the open position. Optics Choice of twelve patented, high- efficiency AccuLED Optic™ technology manufactured from injection-molded acrylic. Optics are precisely designed to shape the light output, maximizing efficiency and application spacing. AccuLED Optic technology, creates consistent distributions with the scalability to meet customized application requirements. Offered Standard in 4000K (+/- 275K) CCT and minimum 70 CRI. Optional 3000K CCT, 5000K CCT and 5700K CCT. For the ultimate level of spill light control, an optional house- side shield accessory can be field or factory installed. The house-side shield is designed to seamlessly integrate with the SL2, SL3 or SL4 optics. LightBAR optic tray is removable and able to rotate 360° in 90° increments for specific placement of the distribution relative to fixture. Electrical LED drivers mount to die-cast aluminum back housing for optimal heat sinking, operation efficacy, and prolonged life. Standard drivers feature electronic universal voltage (120-277V 50/60Hz), 347V 60Hz or 480V 60Hz operation, greater than 0.9 power factor, less that 20% harmonic distortion, and is suitable for operation in -40°C to 40°C ambient environments. All fixtures are shipped standard with 10kV/10kA common – and differential – mode surge protection. LightBARs feature and IP66 enclosure rating and maintain greater than 95% lumen maintenance at 60,000 hours per IESNA TM-21. Occupancy sensor and dimming options available. Mounting Fitter assembly mounts over 3” O.D. tenon and is secured via three concealed stainless steel set screws. Design of fitter provides seamless transition to 4” round poles. Additional mounting accessories include a dual fixture post top mounting arm and wall mount arm. Finish Housing is finished in five-stage super TGIC polyester powder coat paint, 2.5 mil nominal thickness for superior protection against fade and wear. LightBAR™ cover plates are standard white and may be specified to match finish of luminaire housing. Standard colors include black, bronze, grey, white, dark platinum and graphite metallic. RAL and custom color matches available. Consult Outdoor Architectural Colors brochure for a complete selection. Warranty Five-year warranty. TD516001EN 2016-05-13 08:55:47 The geometric form of MESA LED luminaire allows it to adapt to either contemporary or traditional architectural settings. Available in single or twin pole mount configurations with optional wall mounting capability, the MESA LED luminaire's mounting options allow for harmonized site design whether at the entryway or in the parking lot. UL/cUL listed for use in wet locations. DESCRIPTION SYSTEMS CERTIFIED C E R T I F I C A T I O N D A T A UL/cUL Listed ISO 9001 IP66 LightBARs LM79 / LM80 Compliant 2G Vibration Tested E N E R G Y D A T A Electronic LED Driver >0.9 Power Factor <20% Total Harmonic Distortion 120-277V/50 & 60Hz, 347V/60Hz, 480V/60Hz -40°C Minimum Temperature 40°C Ambient Temperature Rating E P A Effective Projected Area: (Sq. Ft.) Single Mount 1.1 S H I P P I N G D A T A Approximate Net Weight: 50 lbs. (22.7 kgs.) 28-1/4" [717mm] 21-1/2"[647mm] 6-1/4"[157mm] DIMENSIONS WALL MOUNT ARM DUAL MOUNT ARM (EPA 1.36) 3" [76mm] 19" [482mm] 38" [965mm] (2) 4"[101mm] 3" [76mm] (2) 8-3/16"[207mm] 4"[101mm] 8-3/16"[207mm] 3" [76mm] MOUNTING ACCESSORIES Catalog # Type Date Project Comments Prepared by Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 65     Invue WARNING: Customer is responsible for engineering analysis to confirm pole and fixture compatibility for all applications. Refer to pole white paper WP513001EN for additional support information. Before installing, make sure proper anchor bolts and templates are obtained. The use of unauthorized accessories such as banners, signs, cameras or pennants for which the pole was not designed voids the pole warranty and may result in pole failure causing serious injury or property damage. Information regarding total loading capacity can be supplied upon request. The pole warranty is void unless poles are used and installed as a complete pole and luminaire combination. This warranty specifically excludes failure as the result of a third party act or omission, misuse, unanticipated uses, fatigue failure or similar phenomena resulting from induced vibration, harmonic oscillation or resonance associated with movement of air currents around the product. Specifications and dimensions subject to change without notice. Consult your lighting representative at Eaton or visit www.eaton.com/lighting for available options, accessories and ordering information. Catalog # Type Date Project Comments Prepared by ARX ALUMINUM ROUND STRAIGHT TD513007EN 2015-12-09 13:41:39 STANDARD BASE (Round aluminum poles only.) TYPE “A” 6", 7", 8" or 10" STANDARD BASE (Round aluminum poles only.) TYPE “N” (Standard with base cover.) 4", 5" or 6" FEATURES •Straight round shaft 6063-T6 aluminum alloy polished •Cast aluminum alloy base with aluminum bolt covers •Anchor bolt per ASTM A576 •Three and four-bolt anchorage configurations •8'-20' mounting heights •Drilled or tenon (specify) ORDERING INFORMATION SAMPLE NUMBER: ARX4T08NGMA1V Product Family Shaft Size (Inches) 1 Wall Thickness (Inches) Mounting Height (Feet) Base Type Finish Mounting Type Number and Location of Arms Options (Add as Suffix) ARX= Aluminum Round Straight 4= 4" 5= 5" T= 0.125" M= 0.188" 08= 8' 10= 10' 12= 12' 15= 15' 18= 18' 20= 20' A= Aluminum (Round 4-Bolt Pole) 2 N= Aluminum (Round 3-Bolt Pole) AP= Grey BA= Anodized Bronze BK= Black BZ= Bronze CA= Anodized Clear DA= Anodized Black DP= Dark Platinum GM= Graphite Metallic GN= Hartford Green WH= White 2= 2-3/8" O.D. Tenon (4" Long) 3= 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon (5" Long) 4= 4" O.D. Tenon (6" Long) - Slide/Flite/Epic 5= 3" O.D. Tenon (4" Long) - Mesa 6= 2-3/8" O.D. Tenon (6" Long) 7= 4" O.D. Tenon (10" Long) - SDM1/SDM2 A= Icon and Ascent Small Drill Pattern C= Icon and Ascent Medium Drill Pattern E= Vision Site Small Drill Pattern F= Vision Site Structural Mount G= Vision Site Medium Structural Mount J= Icon Small Structural Drill Pattern K= Icon Medium Structural Drill Pattern M= Vision Site Medium Drill Pattern X= None 1= Single 2= 2 at 180° 3= Triple 3 4= 4 at 90° 5= 2 at 90° 6= 3 at 90° 7= 2 at 120° X= None A= 1/2" Tapped Hub (Specify location desired) B= 3/4" Tapped Hub (Specify location desired) C= Convenience Outlet 4 E= GFCI Convenience Outlet 4 F= Vibration Pad G= Ground Lug H= Additional Hand Hole 5 V= Vibration Dampener NOTES: 1. All shaft sizes nominal. 2. Base cover not included (order as option). 3. Square poles are 3 at 90°, round poles are 3 at 120°. 4. Outlet is located 4' above base and on same side of pole as hand hole, unless specified otherwise. Receptacle not included, provision only. 5. Additional hand hole is located 12" below pole top and 90° from standard hand hole location, unless otherwise specified. Base View Hand Hole18" B AB BaseSize(S) BP BC H 120° See technical information. DIMENSIONS Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 66     B Wall Thickness Straight Aluminum Tube Alloy 6063-T6 Handhole 4-Bolt Base With Bolt Covers C Butt Diameter A Mo u n t i n g H e i g h t D Top Diameter 1' - 6 " Pole Cap - Aluminum With Stainless Steel Screws (Tenon Option Available - See Mounting Designation) Round Straight Aluminum Pole No Arm — 4-Bolt BaseRSA Dimensions in Inches C D F G H IButt Dia. top Dia. Bolt Cir. Dia. Base sq. Bolt proj. Bolt size 4 4 6.5 - 8 7.5 2 .75 x 17 x 3 Satin Aluminum or Powder Coated Finish per Customer Specification. Finish 01 = Satin Aluminum BA = Black Powder Coat BH = White Powder Coat BM = Dark Bronze Powder Coat BV = Dark Green Powder Coat GC = Gray Powder Coat ** = Specify Finish a B C 12 0.125’’ 4 70 6.0 4.4 4.0 3.1 2.3 78S-004 RSA12B4-4-** RSA12B4-4 - 26252 Hillman Highway Abingdon, VA 24210 800.368.7171 www.hapco.com Customer Name: ProjeCt: LoCatioN: Notes: WARNING: Do not install light pole without luminaire. QuaNtity: The pole shaft will be constructed of seamless extruded tube of 6063 Aluminum Alloy per the requirements of ASTM B221. The shaft assembly shall be full-length heat treated after base weld to produce a T6 temper. 2” x 4” Handhole with curved Lap Style Aluminum Door and two (2) SS Self-Tapping Attaching Screws. A Grounding Provision incorporating a tapped 1/4”- 20NC hole is provided opposite the Handhole. Pole Handhole Anchorage Vibration Damper 4-Bolt Cast Aluminum Base Flange of Alloy 356-T6 with Aluminum Bolt Covers (Alloy 356-F) and Stainless Steel Hex Head Attaching Screws. Base Style Anchorage Kit will include four (4) L-shaped Steel Anchor Bolts conforming to AASHTO M314-90 Grade 55. Ten inches (10") of threaded end will be galvanized per ASTM A153. Kits will contain four (4) Hex Nuts, four (4) Lock Washers, and four (4) Flat Washers (all components Galvanized Steel). A bolt circle template will be provided. When determined necessary by Hapco, a Vibration Damper will be factory-installed inside the pole shaft. Customer specification of the damper is available. Handhole - 0° 180° | I0° - 90° 270° - GBaseSquare FBoltCircle H Bolt Proj.IBoltSize EPA Notes: Effective Projected Area (EPA) in square feet. EPA’s calculated using wind velocity (mph) indicated in accordance with 2009 AASHTO LTS-5 using a 25 year design life. Maximum EPA is based on the luminaire weight shown. Increased luminaire weight may reduce the maximum EPA. If weight is exceeded, or if other design life or code is required, please consult the factory. CAtAloG NuMBer FiNiSH Mounting Designation Side Drill Mount - For Side Drill Mount applications specify luminaire type, quantity and orientation.  A luminaire drilling template must be supplied at time of order. Handhole 180° | I0° - 90° 270° - Tenon Mount For Tenon Mount applications specify both Tenon diameter (2.375", 2.875", 3.5", etc.) and length (3", 4", etc.). Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 67     Capella-LED-CPLS-spec 01/19 page 2 of 4 CPLS Capella LED (small) Roadway Dimensions LED Wattage and Lumen Values: for CPLS with Flat lens and Sag lens Ordering Code: Flat lens (3000K) Total LEDs LED cur- rent (mA) Average System Wattage1 (W) LE2F LE3F LE4F LE5F Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating 35W32LED3K-G2 32 350 37 3676 99 B1-U0-G1 3594 97 B1-U0-G1 3596 97 B1-U0-G1 3624 98 B3-U0-G1 55W32LED3K-G2 32 530 54 5273 98 B1-U0-G1 5155 96 B1-U0-G1 5157 96 B1-U0-G1 5198 96 B3-U0-G1 72W32LED3K-G2 32 700 73 6651 91 B2-U0-G1 6502 89 B1-U0-G1 6504 89 B1-U0-G2 6556 90 B3-U0-G2 55W48LED3K-G2 48 350 55 5514 100 B1-U0-G1 5391 98 B1-U0-G1 5393 98 B1-U0-G2 5436 99 B3-U0-G1 80W48LED3K-G2 48 530 81 7910 98 B2-U0-G1 7733 96 B2-U0-G2 7736 96 B1-U0-G2 7798 97 B3-U0-G2 Ordering Code: Flat lens (4000K) Total LEDs LED cur- rent (mA) Average System Wattage1 (W) LE2F LE3F LE4F LE5F Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating 35W32LED4K-G2 32 350 37 4131 112 B1-U0-G1 4038 109 B1-U0-G1 4040 109 B1-U0-G1 4072 110 B3-U0-G1 55W32LED4K-G2 32 530 54 5925 110 B1-U0-G1 5793 107 B1-U0-G1 5795 107 B1-U0-G2 5841 108 B3-U0-G1 72W32LED4K-G2 32 700 73 7472 102 B2-U0-G1 7306 100 B1-U0-G2 7308 100 B1-U0-G2 7367 110 B3-U0-G2 55W48LED4K-G2 48 350 55 6196 113 B1-U0-G1 6058 110 B1-U0-G1 6060 110 B1-U0-G2 6108 111 B3-U0-G1 80W48LED4K-G2 48 530 81 8887 110 B2-U0-G2 8689 108 B2-U0-G2 8692 108 B2-U0-G2 8761 109 B3-U0-G2 Ordering Code: Sag lens (3000K) Total LEDs LED cur- rent (mA) Average System Wattage1 (W) LE2S LE3S LE4S LE5S Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating 35W32LED3K-G2 32 350 37 3756 102 B1-U0-G1 3705 100 B1-U0-G1 3639 98 B1-U0-G1 3769 102 B3-U0-G1 55W32LED3K-G2 32 530 54 5387 100 B1-U0-G1 5314 98 B1-U0-G1 5219 97 B1-U0-G2 5406 100 B3-U0-G1 72W32LED3K-G2 32 700 73 6794 93 B2-U0-G1 6702 92 B1-U0-G2 6582 90 B1-U0-G2 6817 93 B3-U0-G2 55W48LED3K-G2 48 350 55 5634 102 B1-U0-G1 5558 110 B1-U0-G1 5458 99 B1-U0-G2 5653 103 B3-U0-G1 80W48LED3K-G2 48 530 81 8081 100 B2-U0-G2 7972 99 B2-U0-G2 7829 97 B1-U0-G2 8108 101 B3-U0-G2 Ordering Code: Sag lens (4000K) Total LEDs LED cur- rent (mA) Average System Wattage1 (W) LE2S LE3S LE4S LE5S Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating Lumen Output2 Efficacy (LPW) BUG Rating 35W32LED4K-G2 32 350 37 4220 114 B1-U0-G1 4163 113 B1-U0-G1 4088 111 B1-U0-G1 4234 114 B3-U0-G1 55W32LED4K-G2 32 530 54 6053 112 B1-U0-G1 5971 111 B1-U0-G1 5864 109 B1-U0-G2 6074 113 B3-U0-G2 72W32LED4K-G2 32 700 73 7634 105 B2-U0-G1 7531 103 B1-U0-G2 7396 101 B1-U0-G2 7660 105 B3-U0-G2 55W48LED4K-G2 48 350 55 6330 115 B1-U0-G1 6244 113 B1-U0-G2 6133 111 B1-U0-G2 6352 115 B3-U0-G2 80W48LED4K-G2 48 530 81 9079 113 B2-U0-G2 8957 111 B2-U0-G2 8797 109 B2-U0-G2 9111 113 B4-U0-G2 Actual performance may vary due to installation variables including optics, mounting/ceiling height, dirt depreciation, light loss factor, etc.; highly recommended to confirm performance with a layout - contact Applications at signify.com/outdoorluminaires. Note: Some data may be scaled based on tests on similar but not identical luminaires. 42"(1067 mm)11"(279 mm) 7 1⁄8" (181 mm) 31 1⁄2" (800 mm) 6 1⁄4" (159 mm) 13" (330 mm) 1⁄4" (413 mm) 16 1⁄4" (413 mm) 9 1⁄4"(235 mm)42"(1067 mm)9 1⁄4"(235 mm) 1⁄2" (800 mm) 6 1⁄4" (159 mm) 7 1⁄8" (181 mm) 1⁄2" (800 mm) 6 1⁄4" (159 mm) 13" (330 mm) 13" (330 mm) 1⁄4" (413 mm) 16 1⁄4" (413 mm) 9 1⁄4"(235 mm)42"(1067 mm)9 1⁄4"(235 mm) 31 1⁄2" (800 mm) 6 1⁄4" (159 mm) CPLS (flat lens) EPA: 0.47 sq. ft. Weight: 30 lbs (13.6 kg) CPLS (sag lens) EPA: 0.47 sq. ft. Weight: 30 lbs (13.6 kg) Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 68     B Wall Thickness Straight Aluminum Tube Alloy 6063-T6 Handhole 4-Bolt Base With Bolt Covers C Butt Diameter A Mo u n t i n g H e i g h t D Top Diameter 1' - 6 " Pole Cap - Aluminum With Stainless Steel Screws (Tenon Option Available - See Mounting Designation) Round Straight Aluminum Pole No Arm — 4-Bolt BaseRSA Dimensions in Inches C D F G H I Butt Dia. top Dia. Bolt Cir. Dia. Base sq. Bolt proj. Bolt size 6 6 9 - 10 9.75 2.75 .75 x 30 x 3 Satin Aluminum or Powder Coated Finish per Customer Specification. Finish 01 = Satin Aluminum BA = Black Powder Coat BH = White Powder Coat BM = Dark Bronze Powder Coat BV = Dark Green Powder Coat GC = Gray Powder Coat ** = Specify Finish a B C 25 0.188’’ 6 100 10.0 7.6 7.1 5.7 4.6 55-063 RSA25D6-4-** RSA25D6-4 - 26252 Hillman Highway Abingdon, VA 24210 800.368.7171 www.hapco.com Customer Name: ProjeCt: LoCatioN: Notes: WARNING: Do not install light pole without luminaire. QuaNtity: The pole shaft will be constructed of seamless extruded tube of 6063 Aluminum Alloy per the requirements of ASTM B221. The shaft assembly shall be full-length heat treated after base weld to produce a T6 temper. Reinforced, 3” x 5” curved Cast Aluminum Frame (Alloy 356-T6) with Aluminum Door and two (2) SS Hex Head Screws. A Grounding Provision incorporating a 3/8” diameter hole is provided opposite the Handhole. Pole Handhole Anchorage Vibration Damper 4-Bolt Cast Aluminum Base Flange of Alloy 356-T6 with Aluminum Bolt Covers (Alloy 356-F) and Stainless Steel Hex Head Attaching Screws. Base Style Anchorage Kit will include four (4) L-shaped Steel Anchor Bolts conforming to AASHTO M314-90 Grade 55. Ten inches (10") of threaded end will be galvanized per ASTM A153. Kits will contain four (4) Hex Nuts, four (4) Lock Washers, and four (4) Flat Washers (all components Galvanized Steel). A bolt circle template will be provided. When determined necessary by Hapco, a Vibration Damper will be factory-installed inside the pole shaft. Customer specification of the damper is available. Handhole - 0° 180° | I0° - 90° 270° - GBaseSquare FBoltCircle H Bolt Proj.IBoltSize EPA Notes: Effective Projected Area (EPA) in square feet. EPA’s calculated using wind velocity (mph) indicated in accordance with 2009 AASHTO LTS-5 using a 25 year design life. Maximum EPA is based on the luminaire weight shown. Increased luminaire weight may reduce the maximum EPA. If weight is exceeded, or if other design life or code is required, please consult the factory. CAtAloG NuMBer FiNiSH Mounting Designation Side Drill Mount - For Side Drill Mount applications specify luminaire type, quantity and orientation.  A luminaire drilling template must be supplied at time of order. Handhole 180° | I0° - 90° 270° - Tenon Mount For Tenon Mount applications specify both Tenon diameter (2.375", 2.875", 3.5", etc.) and length (3", 4", etc.). 01BABHBMBVGC** Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 69     DOWNTOWN Pole Lamp Color Pole/Head Part # Part # Color Code Downtown P1122-48-861-Y2 S5381I-ZB5FBG100SG Munsell 5.5 GY 2.76/2.1 B70028-B6-Y3 RNS20-55W32LED4K-T-ACDR-LE3-UNIV-DMG-SMB-RCD-(MUNSELL GREEN 5.5 –GY-2.76/2.1) Munsell 5.5 GY 2.76/2.1 Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 70     Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 71     Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 72     Item 2. Attachment F - Special Street Light Style Placement Guide     Packet Pg. 73     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 16, 2026 Report #: 2607-6529 TITLE Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan. CEQA Status: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council for approval. BACKGROUND The ARB is expected to prepare an annual report/work plan as described in the City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook. The plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan and activities included in the Board’s work for the next fiscal year. If new issues arise during the year, the work plan can be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. In its review of the previous year's work plan, Council expressed support for the plan, particularly Work Plan Goal 5, which focuses on coordination between the ARB, other boards and commissions, and the City Council. ANALYSIS An ARB annual report is required in the By-Laws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward on the next fiscal year. A draft plan has been prepared by staff (Attachment A) using Council’s provided template. Staff removed the ARB Recommendations to Council section that appeared in previous work plans, to better align with other board/commission work plans. The previous year's work plan goals were carried forward with minor revisions to the priority levels, timelines, and activities identified under each goal. Items completed during the prior year were removed from the work plan. The attached plan includes a summary of the ARB’s accomplishments from last year and how they aligned with Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 74     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 last year’s work plan goals. It also suggests new goals for the ARB over the next year. The ARB is asked to review this document, suggest updates, and make a recommendation that the work plan be considered and approved by Council. Council is scheduled to review this plan, as well as all other board and commission work plans, in September or October 2026. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS AUTHOR/TITLE: 1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 75     Prior Year Accomplishments See attached summary for more information. Architectural Review Board Staff Liaison: Steven Switzer, Senior Planner Lead Department: Current Planning, Planning and Development Services Division About the Board The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.21. Residency is not required. For the ARB webpage go to bit.ly/paloaltoARB. 2026-2027 Workplan Mission Statement The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on the building design, site planning, landscape planning, massing and facades, material selection, lighting, signage and other related issues for most major new construction including additions and renovations that alter the exterior building face. The type of buildings reviewed include commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential. In addition, the ARB is a resource as knowledgeable observers of many varied urban environments, to assist Palo Alto as it develops area plans to accommodate additional housing. The ARB Scope of Review is fully noted in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 under Section 18.76.020 as well as in Chapter 18.77 under Section 18.77.073. Current Commissioners Mousam Adcock (Chair), Yingxi Chen, David Hirsch, Kendra Rosenberg (Vice Chair) Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 76     TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED On-Going Planning staff prepare staff reports, packets and presentations. They ensure paper plan sets and material boards are ready for ARB review. Other departments, such as, City Attorney, Urban Forestry, Transportation, etc., may be required from time to time. Consultants, including CEQA consultants, may also be required. Issuance of recommendations on projects and high-quality architecture throughout the City. Yes COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE N/A 2025-2026 Workplan This is the Board's main mission and serves to ensure the City develops high quality projects LOWER PRIORITY Architectural Review Board PROJECT/GOAL 1: BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings and Objective Standards Staff Liaison: Steven Switzer, Senior Planner Lead Department: Current Planning, Planning and Development Services Division PURPOSE STATEMENT: The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on the building design, site planning, landscape planning, massing and facades, material selection, lighting, signage and other related issues for most major new construction including additions and renovations that alter the exterior building face. The type of buildings reviewed include commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential. In addition, the ARB is a resource as knowledgeable observers of many varied urban environments, to assist Palo Alto as it develops area plans to accommodate additional housing. The ARB Scope of Review is fully noted in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 under Section 18.76.020 as well as in Chapter 18.77 under Section 18.77.073. HIGH PRIORITY Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 77     TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED On-Going Staff time. Council Approval Yes COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Yes TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED FY 2026-27 with major code and policy milestones anticipated in calendar year 2026 and 2027 Additional staff at Planning so that the quality and completeness of the work is maintained. Council Approval No COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Yes PROJECT/GOAL 3: Assist the City as it considers modifications to Objective Standards; Provide feedback based on research from projects as they go through the objective standards ministerial processes. Suggest ways to better address different housing typology. HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY •Review and recommend aesthetic standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) as part of an ongoing WCF Ordinance update. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS The ARB has unique feedback to provide as a stakeholder as they have interest in approving the aesthetic environment of the City while also understanding constraints that architects/developers may come across when implementing standards being considered •Housing generation, feasibility and design quality. •Downtown Housing Plan and SB 79 implementation •Objective standards for diverse housing types •South of Forest Area objective standards •Design guidance for major growth areas PROJECT/GOAL 2: BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Provide feedback to staff and Council on the creation of new guidelines, ordinances, and/or streetscapes, as directed by Council Streamline the objective standard review process and ensure that projects using the streamlined review process/objective standards conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Policies, including its high-quality design standards HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY •Modifications to South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA) subjective development standards with objective standards consistent with Housing Element Program 3.7. •Review and recommend aesthetic standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) as part of an ongoing WCF Ordinance update. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 78     TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED On-going Planning staff to help research policies and programs; coordination with long range planning section staff. Increased adherence to Comprehensive Plan policies Yes COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Yes TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED On-going Staff time •Have staff continue to provide updates in the pending projects attachment on development proposals. •The ARB can appoint a representative to attend Council and PTC and to provide feedback on reviewed projects. No COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE No Improve Coordination between the Architectural Review Board and other boards, commissions, and Council.PROJECT/GOAL 5: PROJECT/GOAL 4: HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY This project would enhance implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS •San Antonio Road Area Plan •Downtown Housing Plan •University Avenue streetscape improvements Discuss specific Coordinated Area Plans/ streetscape improvements and provide comments that the ARB would recommend exploring/implementing. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Improved coordination between boards/commissions and council to get feedback from colleagues on other boards. Provide more coordinated feedback from the City for developers. HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 79     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ANNUAL REPORT PRIOR YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2026 ITEMS OF NOTE • The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to the San Antionio Road Area Plan, Cubberley Master Plan, and California Avenue Pre-Approved Parklet designs. This work was consistent with Goal 2 and 4 of the 25/26 Work Plan. • The ARB designated board members as representatives to attend Council and Planning and Transportation Commission meeting to provide feedback on reviewed projects. In addition, the ARB selected board members to represent the board with the Urban Land Institute Initiative with Palo Alto, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and Stanford related to the Palo Alto Transit Center. This work is consistent with Goal 5 of the 25/26 Work Plan. • The ARB reviewed around 17 projects, including multi-family housing with below-market units, mixed-use developments, master sign programs, and retail modifications at Stanford Shopping Center aligning with Goal 1 of the 24/25 Work Plan. APPLICATION REVIEW The ARB prides itself on its collaborative review process, where board member’s diverse perspectives enhance proposed projects and improve Palo Alto's built environment. Our oversight has made a significant impact, as shown in the renderings section of this report, comparing initial proposals to final designs. ADDRESS/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 80     ADDRESS/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4000 Middlefield Road (Cubberley Community Center) Cubberley Master Plan San Antiono Road Area Plan San Antiono Road Area Plan Cal Avenue Pre-Approved Parklets Pre-approved parklets for car-free streets RENDERINGS Below are renderings of approved projects, showcasing the evolution from their initial proposal to designs with the incorporated ARB feedback. A summary of key design modifications made based on ARB feedback is also provided. 2100-2400 Geng Road Initial Proposal: Final Design: Incorporated Feedback: • Incorporated a third duplex building typology to the project. • Softened contrast of colors for a more muted color palette to align with the Baylands Master Plan. • Tiered retaining walls and landscaping on Geng Road and entry drive to allow for a more gradual transition to the raised grade of the site. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 81     3606 El Camino Real Initial Proposal: Final Design: Incorporated Feedback: • Continued the fin design motif to both building corners • Included an accentuated massing break along El Camino Real and more inset balconies. • Enhanced landscaping on the south side to transition the building into the lower density development of the Barron Park neighborhood. • Revised podium level courtyards with improved access and circulation. 3781 El Camino Real Initial Proposal: Final Design: Incorporated Feedback: • Expanded the podium level patios to maximize usable outdoor space and strengthened the connection between the building and the street. • Improved bike circulation with direct connections to the parking garage and relocated trash staging to avoid right-of-way conflicts. • Redesigned garage entry to better screen the two levels of parking from Curtner Avenue. Item 3 Attachment A - Draft ARB 26-27 Work Plan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 82     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: July 16, 2026 Report #: 2607-6539 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2026 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 21, 2026 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 83     Page 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: May 21, 2026 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:34 A.M. Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Kendra Rosenberg, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: None Chair Chen called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared there was a quorum. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner Steven Switzer announced that no changes were planned for the meeting. In-Person Public Comment None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Senior Planner Steven Switzer noted that there was a newly submitted project located at 2197 East Bayshore Road, which was a site and design application that would construct 62 residential townhome units. On June 4, the Board would address the city parking garage located 375 Hamilton Avenue and a builder’s remedy project located at 762 San Antonio. The June 18 meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum because of absences. If there were other absences planned, it should be directed to staff's attention. Chair Chen mentioned that she would not attend the next meeting. Vice Chair Adcock asked if Tier 1 and 2 wireless would be addressed on the next agenda. Mr. Switzer stated that Tier 1 and 2 wireless would not be addressed on the next agenda as some projects had shifted. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00294]: Review of an Application to Rezone the Subject Properties From Service Commercial (CS) to a New Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 84     Page 2 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to Redevelop the Site With an Eight- Story Mixed-Use Building With 167 Residential Rental Units, Including 28 Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, and Approximately 1,400 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail Space. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070) Is Currently Being Prepared. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS). Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Board Member Rosenberg, Board Member Jojarth, and Board Member Hirsch disclosed that they had visited the site. Senior Planner Joey Dinh supplied slides. Staff was requesting initial feedback on several architectural and site planning topics related to the findings the ARB would have to make in the future to accompany a more formal recommendation and included building height, massing, step-backs, transitions to nearby properties, frontage design especially along San Antonio Road, treatment of the ground-floor retail corner, façade articulations, materials, open space, and garage access for trash, loading, and fire access. Staff was not requesting a formal recommendation at this meeting but to receive initial feedback, so the applicant could consider refinements before returning the project to ARB for a formal action. CEQA and departmental reviews were ongoing. After the ARB’s review, the project would be presented to the PTC for a formal recommendation, and then the project would return to Council for a final decision. The site was located on the corner of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street, and the corridor was dominated by one- and two-story commercial and service uses, but the corridor was in the transition process. There were several approved or proposed nearby housing projects. The San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP) was not yet adopted, but as this site was in that plan area, the future vision for the corridor was relevant to this project, especially as it related to the frontage design, special setbacks, and potential for future multimodal improvements. Council was expected address the Area Plan in June and provide staff with a recommendation for the preferred or core scenario for the Area Plan. Mr. Dinh stated the plan presented several options, but based on feedback, the most likely recommended option would include some form of high-density housing with maximum permitted heights up to 90 feet, more contemplated along the southern side of San Antonio, and retail or active ground-floor uses at key corners. There were several options for multimodal improvements, and staff hoped to get direction from Council, but it would include enhanced pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Mr. Dinh shared a slide showing the proposed PC/PHZ compared to what was currently allowed or required under the base zone district of service commercial and the Housing Incentive Program. Mr. Dinh detailed what was being proposed as it related to building height, type and number of units, ground- floor commercial, floor area ratio, and parking spaces. Mr. Dinh provided a sliding showing how the project operations would be organized. The San Antonio frontage was designed with a retail corner, and the ground floor would include a residential lobby, a co-work space, and a bike room, and there would be open space and landscaping. Vehicle access and most, if not all, of the operations would be on Leghorn Street, so no curb cuts were being proposed along San Antonio Road. Trash staging and pickup, fire access, and loading would be on Leghorn. The bike room would have approximately 1 long-term space per unit. The project proposed 74 parking spaces to include car share or guest/future resident spaces, which roughly equated to a ratio of 0.44 spaces per unit. Mr. Dinh voiced that the applicant had provided a draft Transportation Demand Management Plan that addressed the lower parking calculation, but it was under review by the Office of Transportation (OOT). Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 85     Page 3 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Staff requested ARB’s feedback on the parking calculations since it would affect the parking strategy, site circulation, design, and garage access. The proposed garage entry and arrival area would be off Leghorn Street. Mr. Dinh provided details as it related to floor plans, open space, and landscaping. The proposed landscape and plant pallet was mostly native and drought-tolerant species. The project was revised after the Council pre-screening to address feedback related to massing and step-backs, which Mr Dinh detailed. Mr. Dinh furnished slides showing the vertical organization of the building sections and outlined the materials that would be used. As for transition and privacy, the project was adjacent to the 808 San Antonio Road Project, which had an existing residential PC, which was under review to change, but because the PC was in place, the special requirements as identified in Code Section 18.38.150 would apply. Mr. Dinh displayed a slide showing the privacy exhibit identifying façade breaks, reduced glazing, some solid balcony railings, and interior window coverings as it related to the northern elevation, and staff requested feedback on the transition, privacy concerns, and impacts to light and air. Staff recommended that the ARB provide initial feedback and then continue the project to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if 67-percent lot coverage related to ground-level and not the podium level. Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould answered that lot coverage was based on the ground level. Certain projections on upper levels extending more than 4 feet would count toward lot coverage. Ms. Raybould would confirm that everything was included in lot coverage. Senior Planner Steven Switzer added that A0.1 of the plans denoted the amounts of lot coverage. Board Member Rosenberg asked what the path would be for trash pickup and if 808 San Antonio’s trash staging was on San Antonio. Mr. Dinh explained how trash would be removed from the site and onto the staging area. The trash staging for 808 San Antonio would be onsite. Chair Chen queried how many parking spaces the State required for the proposed retail. Ms. Raybould replied there was not a parking requirement for 1,500 square feet or less of retail. However, as this was a planned community rezoning, all aspects of the development standards would be as negotiated. Board Member Hirsch questioned if bike parking would include motor-driven bikes. The question was raised because the project was somewhat remote and low in onsite vehicles. Board Member Hirsch asked if staff wanted feedback related to privacy for the adjacent neighboring building and what staff had been studying. Ms. Raybould would investigate bike parking as it related to motorbikes. OOT encouraged that there be charging plugs in the bike rooms for E-bikes, although it was voluntary and not required in the code. Mr. Dinh responded that staff wanted feedback on transition standards and privacy impacts on the corridor but primarily along the northern elevation. Related to privacy of those units, the building employed some façade breaks, reduced window glazing, internal window coverings, and solid material for balconies. Board Member Hirsch asked if such would be discussed with previous applicants. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 86     Page 4 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Ms. Raybould answered that it would be discussed. There were early discussions about step-backs from the neighboring buildings, and both developers had concerns about how much that would affect their ability to provide the number of desired units. The discussion had been around what was related to privacy and what was related to massing. The Planning Commission did not believe step-backs were warranted. Staff wanted more step-backs on the San Antonio frontage, but larger setbacks between the buildings were not needed. The developer at 808 made some changes to the design so the massing would set back a little, and some balconies were added, so the discussion was more about privacy concerns and how those uses could coexist. Senior Project Manager at KTGY Group, Inc., Edward Kim voiced that the current design reflected feedback from the Council pre-screening. The applicant was evaluating the parking approach in response to PTC feedback. Mr. Kim focused the presentation on massing, street frontage, ground-floor activation, privacy, and materials. The project was organized to support the San Antonio corridor's planned transition toward a pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use environment. Mr. Kim discussed the building design and the courtyard. The goal was to reduce the continuous length of the street-facing elevation and to create a finer grain pattern at the pedestrian level. The proposed project incorporated retail at the corner of the intersection between Leghorn and San Antonio in response to the Council pre- screen. The proposed building scale would be consistent with the adjacent properties, and the upper story step-backs, recessed courtyards, materials, and façade articulation would differentiate the building relationship with its neighbors while contributing to a diverse San Antonio corridor. Mr. Kim discussed the goal to reduce the apparent mass through 3 primary moves and the goal for ground floor to enhance the pedestrian experience. Mr. Kim stated the residential lobby, retail, co-working amenity, and bicycle facilities were intentionally positioned along San Antonio Road to provide day-to-day use and pedestrian/cyclist access points. The design would be a continuous, activated frontage where ground-floor programming and landscaping would work together from the public realm into the building. The project would consolidate the 5 curb cuts on San Antonio and Leghorn into 1 access off Leghorn to reduce conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists along the San Antonio corridor and support a more continuous multimodal path. Mr. Kim provided details related to the consolidated entry. The project would provide privacy measures along the northern façade, which were outlined in the ODS standards in addition to a few additional strategies, related to glazing, façade breaks, balcony offsets and solid railing, window position, and interior window covers and privacy treatments. The project had a cohesive material strategy across all elevations, which were outlined in the objective design standards. Mr. Kim provided details of the materials that would be used. The proposal would reduce apparent building mass, increase ground-floor engagement with the public, consolidate vehicle access points, and apply a consistent material approach across the building façades. Public Comment Steve L. discussed parking and the project being about the future and the City’s goal to reduce car dependence. The San Antonio Area Plan would provide significant mobility enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists, possibly shuttles, and eventually transit. Herb B. discussed environmental issues and stated that planned home zoning was not included in the zoning code as required by law and requested that overnight parking of oversized vehicles, sea level rise adaptation, the underground water table, and the earthquake maps be taken into consideration. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 87     Page 5 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Board Member Rosenberg asked how trash would be handled and where residents would deposit it. It appeared that A4 would be a studio apartment, which should be clarified on the bedroom count. The A1s and variations thereof affected A6, A7, etc., and appeared to have an internal layout for bedrooms with no exterior windows, and Board Member Rosenberg inquired if there was a light and air requirement for bedrooms. Board Member Rosenberg referenced a specific A1 and queried if to would not be a studio because there was extra width to make it a one bedroom. Mr. Kim replied, regarding trash, that onsite management would use the termination room within the building and move it and locate it within the trash staging area outside the building frontage on Leghorn. Mr. Kim referenced Sheet A1.0 and detailed the trash route and referred to Sheet A2.2 and explained how residents would deposit trash. As for the A1s, the borrowed light code requirement would be triggered, so there would be adequate air and light. The specific A1 Board Member Rosenberg referenced would not be a studio because there was extra width to make it a one bedroom. All the internal spacing complied and met the standards for living and sleeping areas per code, and light and air would be addressed with openness through the sleeping area. Board Member Rosenberg understood that it complied with code but encouraged that bedrooms be located on the exterior for fresh air purposes. Vice Chair Adcock addressed Sheet A1.0 and asked if the trash would go in the fenced area and if management would roll the bins to the street in the early morning. Vice Chair Adcock pointed out the area labeled move-in/move-out and inquired if a moving truck would stage in that area. Vice Chair Adcock asked if there was a bike lane on Leghorn and how moving trucks would impact bike routes. Mr. Kim confirmed that trash would go in the fenced area. Service time was unpredictable, but it was anticipated that onsite management would take the trash out in the early morning. Personnel or staff for the waste hauler would pull the bins out of the fenced area and service each individual bin separately one at a time. A moving truck would stage in the area labeled move-in/move-out. Onsite management would be responsible for maintaining hours of operation and when resident loading would happen, so it would not overlap with trash service days. Ms. Raybould responded there was no bike route on Leghorn, and she did not believe there was a shared bike lane, but she would double check. Chair Chen stated there was a loading zone labeled for San Antonio, which could impact the bike lane. Planning Manager Raybould stated there would be not be a loading zone on San Antonio. Vice Chair Adcock voiced that moving trucks could be parked for some time, which could block bike routes. Vice Chair Adcock queried where deliveries and ride-share services would occur and if the ramp with the tight turn radius would be one way. Mr. Kim answered that it would be determined where deliveries and ride-share services would occur. The ramp would be two-way, and it could be chamfered. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if chamfering the ramp would mean losing parking space, what the construction type would be, why the 7th floor would be 11’3,” and if the outdoor terrace would be on pedestal pavers. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 88     Page 6 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Mr. Kim replied that chamfering the ramp could mean losing parking space, but the turning radius could be studied. The ramp slopes would meet the transition requirements. The construction would be 5 levels of Type 3 over 3 levels of Type 1. The 7th floor would be 11’3” to make an accessible path to the roof terrace within the clubroom space. The outdoor terrace would be on pedestal pavers. The applicant would continue to refine and coordinate the plumbing drops. The drops for the courtyard and the drainage slopes were as far away from the residential units as possible. Vice Chair Adcock stated that the floor to floor, particularly with the terraces, seemed very tight being right up against the 90 foot with 89-something. Vice Chair Adcock asked how the tandem parking in a rental environment would be managed, if there would be space for tree planting between 788 and 808 on the north side and within the courtyard, and if it was possible to have green walls along some of the walls without balconies, so there would be greenery instead of a solid wall. Level 6 having a view of a solid wall would be problematic. Vice Chair Adcock inquired what the retail options were for a 1,400 square-foot space. Mr. Kim answered that parking would be available on an as-needed basis per tenant. The tandem stalls would be dedicated to the two-bedroom or larger units with multiple vehicles. It was anticipated that management would do the allocation. Regarding the north side, there was a need to comply with a fire separation distance, so the path was dedicated to access to the rear for a fire incident. The green hatch along the north was to accommodate for some type of bioretention or stormwater treatment. The applicant would explore the type of vegetation that made the most sense. There was a need for bioretention or filter planters on the podium courtyard for stormwater treatment, but landscaping could be planted within the spaces. The stormwater treatment would be raised, so the landscaping would be elevated, so the plantings would be visible at the third-floor level. The applicant could look into there being green walls along some of the walls without balconies. Retail options for a 1,400 square-foot space included coffee, quick dining, and pickup. Community/resident serving retail could thrive within that footprint. Vice Chair Adcock felt 1,400 square feet was too small for a restaurant as space was needed for storage, a kitchen, etc. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if the material would be terracotta or GFRC. Mr. Kim responded that 1,400 square feet was enough space for a restaurant. The material would be GFRC with an overall look of terracotta. Senior Director of Development at Grubb Megan Watson added that 1,400 square feet was perfect for a coffee shop-type use. Board Member Rosenberg displayed a visual of the material and asked if all 3 would be used in a mixture. Mr. Kim confirmed that all 3 would be used in a mixture. Board Member Hirsch questioned if stormwater retention could be on the roof. It appeared that the retention issue had not been solved. The number of retention areas was not shown on the plans. Board Member Hirsch asked how San Antonio Road would be used for building access for motor vehicles. It seemed that the amount of traffic would be overkill for an interior area. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 89     Page 7 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Mr. Kim stated that stormwater retention was extremely heavy for a roof structure, so they would put it on the ground or on a concrete podium. Mr. Kim referred to Sheet A0.10, the pedestrian and bicycle circulation diagram, and explained that there were substantial opportunities for ingress and egress along San Antonio, which was somewhat the primary goal for having the external-facing access points for residents, guests, and especially retail. It was anticipated that with the full buildout of the San Antonio corridor that bicyclists and pedestrians would activate the street frontage frequently to get to the anchoring corner of retail. The applicant would strategize how to solve for motor vehicles. In terms of day-to-day use for vehicular access, residents would park in the garage and access it internally. Mr. Kim stated the ultimate goal was to bring everyone out toward San Antonio. There was a challenge in being one of the first projects prior to a San Antonio Corridor Area Plan. Board Member Hirsch noted that the neighboring building had a layby on the site so cars could pull off San Antonio for drop-offs, etc., although that might not be the best solution. Board Member Hirsch asked if the applicant was waiting to get feedback from the San Antonio study. Mr. Kim stated the applicant’s team needed to coordinate with the San Antonio corridor vision, and it would be studied. Board Member Hirsch stated the garage might not be the best space for drop-offs, etc. The applicant and the City, with the study, needed to ensure a solution to San Antonio. It might be possible to designate certain parking along the street edge or onsite, but the problem needed to be solved and coordinated with all the transportation issues. Board Member Hirsch inquired if the facia and soffit color had been determined, what area would be designated for mail and package delivery, and if there should be a garbage shoot on the way to the elevator instead at the rear of the building. Mr. Kim responded that the facia and soffit color had not been finalized. It was anticipated that it would be a pink-orange tone, but it could be refined. A designated area for mail and package delivery had not yet been planned for, but it would be studied. The applicant could study there being a garbage shoot on the way to the elevator instead at the rear of the building. Board Member Jojarth queried if thought had been given to canine hygiene and if there would be a space for children. Mr. Kim addressed Sheet A1.0 and noted there was a designation location for a pet spa and wash on the ground floor adjacent to the bike storage. There was a spot dedicated for a dog run behind the building along the eastern edge. There would be access from the lobby to the western edge to a dog run. Mr. Kim outlined the path one would take to the dog run. The offering for the unit typologies was not heavily family oriented as they were primarily studios and one-bedroom units, so there was not an amenity package specifically for the family-oriented market. Board Member Jojarth commented that it was common families to live in 1- or 2-bedrooms units, and many single parents were not able to afford a larger home. Board Member Jojarth referenced Sheet A0.10, bicycle circulation, and questioned why 1 of the 2 entrances was highlighted with the red arrow. It appeared that both access points would have a zigzag shape, which might not be convenient. Both paths crossed the sidewalk, and the entry should be safe for pedestrians and convenient for bicyclists. Board Member Jojarth addressed Sheet A2.3, the building plan for Levels 4 to 7, and asked if thought Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 90     Page 8 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 had been given to mirroring the floor plan so the balcony would be closer to the courtyard area, the bedroom would not be directly behind the elevator, and it would result in more light. Mr. Kim stated that both bicycle entrances served as access points and could be highlighted. The applicant was showing a dedicated bike lane separate from vehicular traffic. Mr. Kim understood that as the corridor was built out where the bike lane would be within that 25-foot setback would be up for discussion. The applicant was taking a first pass at showing that there would be a dedicated and separate bike lane, but there would be some flexibility upon adopting the San Antonio Corridor Area Plan. As for mirroring the floor plan for Levels 4 to 7, there would be further refinement, but the level below that would be Type 1 construction, so living spaces and interior layout of the units would have to be coordinated with structural columns. Ms. Raybould added that staff hoped to get clearer direction in June about Council’s preferred option for SARAP. Staff hoped that further direction would give more guidance that could then be applied to the project. Staff would ask for an easement as part of the project, but staff had not gone into detail about whether that would be the length of the setback or a lesser setback. By June, staff would have a sense of what might be requested for the maximum. Vice Chair Adcock referenced Sheet L0.01 and asked how deep the pool would be on the second-floor deck. Mr. Kim answered that the pool would be 3 to 4 feet deep. Chair Chen questioned why there had been a change in the number of parking spaces compared to the previously approved parking plan with underground parking and why the floor-to-ceiling height for the fitness center would be 9 feet. Mr. Kim replied that the cost to dewater and excavate made project construction cost infeasible. The strategy was to deliver a project quickly and to bring the sunken parking up. The finished fitness center ceiling height would probably be about 8’6”. Chair Chen stated, depending on the equipment and activities in the fitness center, an 8-foot ceiling seemed low. Chair Chen asked why the railing heights would be different on the street front from the ones along the back. Mr. Kim responded, regarding the difference in railing heights, they wanted to prioritize the visibility on San Antonio and Leghorn with the glass railing. As for the rear, it was not known what was going to happen on the Mountain View property. If in the future another project should come in with a closer proximity, there might be a different railing treatment. The applicant wanted to prioritize edges and frontage with the glass railing. The rest of it would be metal railing, except it would be solid railing the north. Vice Chair Adcock addressed the historical resource evaluation, which appeared to qualify for a listing under Category 1, and asked if the previous CEQA provided mitigation measures for demolishing the building. Ms. Raybould stated the previous CEQA provided mitigation measures for demolishing the building. The CEQA for the project would be an addendum that would streamline off the previously approved EIR. The Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 91     Page 9 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 demolition of the historic building and the mitigation and overwriting considerations had been approved. Board Member Rosenberg asked if one would go through the clubroom or the stairwell to get to the roof terrace, if there were plans to rent the clubroom out for private events, and if the roof terrace would be included with a private rental. Mr. Kim responded that one would have to go through the clubroom to get to the roof terrace. It had not been decided whether the clubroom would be rented out or if it would include the roof terrace. Ms. Watson stated amenity spaces were not rented out for private events. All events would be for all residents. Chair Chen closed the public session. Board Member Jojarth liked the project overall – the materials, the setback on the corner, retail being incorporated, and the recessed courtyard on Level 3. The building height would be higher than the existing zoning, but it was similar to the surrounding buildings. Board Member Jojarth considered it to be the new Palo Alto. The project had a lot of things Board Member Jojarth wanted to see in other projects. Parking was a big topic, and there was not a good solution for pick-ups/drop-offs and E-bikes. The bicycle entrance was not convenient. Emphasizing a car-free society was an interesting idea, but there were implications in doing that. Having only 2 designated drop-off spaces on San Antonio was problematic. With the size of the development, there should be a mix of residents, to include students, older adults, families, etc., so the building would serve a wide spectrum of society, including children. The trash topic could be better thought through. Board Member Jojarth appreciated that the applicant had listened to the previous feedback of commissions, etc. Board Member Hirsch commented that the aesthetics of the building were excellent and liked the way it had been scaled down and the ground floor with a canopy. Integrating the slippage was a clever idea. It broke the scale down and gave it an urban quality. The side wall adjacent to another building was massive and would not be the best of places, but with it being a rental building, it was less problematic. With the closeness of buildings, privacy needed to be created for the façades. The building was attractive, and the selection of materials was well thought out. Some of the elements of the entry had not been addressed, such as the mail/package room, and Board Member Hirsch hoped that issue would be in the next presentation. The functions along San Antonio might need to be adjusted and reduced. The large bike storage room was terrific, but the door to enter/exit the room might need to be larger. The transportation issues were most critical, but it was being addressed by looking to the future of transportation with rideshare, etc. Board Member Hirsch stated it could not be done in the garage and had to be addressed with the San Antonio Road study. Trash should not be at the far end. If it was to be picked up on Leghorn, it should be at the Leghorn area. The ventilation of some of the apartments and borrowing light was concerning. It was standard practice to locate bedrooms and bathrooms on outer walls. The apartment on the farthest end of the notch needed to be redesigned to get more light. Board Member Hirsch suggested carrying it across to the dead wall of the unit in front of it and having a view of the pool, etc. The applicant created places for people to enjoy the building with the exercise spaces, etc. It would be nice to have a broad Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 92     Page 10 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 swath of Palo Alto’s population in the building, but most would be accommodated. This project might not be family housing, but the City was getting an increasing number of townhome projects for families. Vice Chair Adcock agreed with Board Member Hirsch’s exterior design comments, but the interiors were not as equally successful. The apartments should be more family-friendly as it was important to have a larger cross-section of people. Not everyone could afford to buy a townhome. The B units were larger, but many of the As with interior bedrooms and bathrooms toward the exterior wall indicated that folks would not spend much time in the apartment. It should be a more pleasant place to live. Regarding borrowed light being to code, Vice Chair Adcock requested the applicant go beyond code and make it a more pleasant living environment. As for the 2-bedroom units, common space was more important than large bathrooms. Greenery visualized from work and living spaces enhanced well-being, which the applicant should consider in the design. Thought should be given to organizing the Leghorn side of the street for rideshare and deliveries. The GFRC and the Stucco were too pink and should be more orange and brown to achieve a terracotta look. The renderings were better than the sample colors. Board Member Rosenberg liked the building overall. The layout of the central courtyard was lovely. Board Member Rosenberg was concerned about the canyon between the building and the neighboring 8-story building but understood it was unavoidable. Thought should be given to window placement and possibly having a 15-degree angle and/or frosted glass on the lower portions and clear glass on the upper portions to mitigate that façade. The biggest issue was Level 1. The enhanced entry zone might provide a solution for drop-offs, etc. Parking spaces next to gates were problematic, and having a couple feet next to the gate would be helpful. Where the gate would be placed should be reanalyzed. Maybe both sides of the gate at the setback line should be flanked with electrical spaces instead of having one side be a long and deep electrical and the other one parking spaces. Exiting a parking spot at the gate could be problematic. Board Member Rosenberg requested that such be considered when reevaluating the turning radius of the ramp and parking layout. Board Member Rosenberg stated the trash room should be next to the elevators and discussed how that might be done. The A4 was a studio, not a 1-bedroom. Board Member Rosenberg did not like the bedrooms on the inside. Maybe A1 and A1.1 could be combined into a 2-bedroom. Board Member Rosenberg loved the courtyard, the pool area, and the pet spa. Thought might be given to accessing the pet spa from the outside, which might become a use for residents and nonresidents. Maybe it could be bigger and a retail space. The dog run on the backside would be beneficial. The fitness going out to the pool area was nice, but there might need to be more doors. Board Member Rosenberg appreciated the roofing; the setback terrace at the corner; the terracotta, although it should be more orange than pink; and the texture change. The wood in the renderings was browner than the samples, which were a little orange. Board Member Rosenberg was looking forward to the project being built. Vice Chair Adcock addressed the trash shoot and mentioned that there was a code requirement that elevators be within 200 feet of stairs and explained that it might help with the trash shoot element. Board Member Hirsch noted that there could be access to the parking garage if there was an elevator at the far end, and there could be an additional exit/entry for the building, and that might allow the trash process to work the way it was describe by the applicant. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 93     Page 11 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Board Member Rosenberg was thrilled to see that there would be retail and would be disappointed if the applicant had to have extra parking spaces because of it. Board Member Rosenberg would rather have retail and a little less parking. Chair Chen found the rendering exciting and the exterior of the building well designed with the massing break down, the use of different materials, the canopy connecting the third floor and the lobby, retail space wrapping around the corner, the glazing areas, and the co-work space. All the amenities and the landscaping would activate the street front and make it pedestrian friendly and welcoming. The trash shoot should be close to the to the elevators. Chair Chen did not like the bedrooms without windows. Parking would be a challenge for residents, and more was needed. More parking could widen tenant selection, etc. It appeared that the lobby would be used less than what was proposed. Chair Chen explained why thought should be given to the retail and lobby being switched or the co-work space and the lobby being switched. An 8-foot ceiling height for the fitness center seemed too low. Chair Chen encouraged the applicant to use the same railings for the front and back of the building. More connections between the front and back would make the entire design more cohesive. Board Member Hirsch thought some of Chair Chen’s comments would alter the entire ground floor plan, and it was concerning because the ground floor had a good arrangement. The off-center was very much part of the design with the black element moving through the façade. There was not a conflict for either pedestrians or bicyclists entering the building. Board Member Hirsch asked where there was a conflict in circulation. Chair Chen stated it was not a conflict in circulation. It was about the lobby and who would go through it. Bicyclists would use the corridor connected to the elevator. Pedestrians would use Leghorn Street as it would be the drop-off area, not San Antonio. Board Member Hirsch expressed that the drop-off area was being studied. Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch discussed the drop-off area being on either San Antonio or Leghorn. Ms. Raybould added that staff was seeking direction from Council on the preferred options, but it was not expected that there would be parking along the San Antonio frontage, so there would be no area for a loading area. Board Member Hirsch stated not having a solution for San Antonio would be a disaster and asked how it would work on a side street with potentially 150 people using rideshare. Board Member Hirsch added that the buildings along the corridor did not have that capability. Ms. Raybould voiced that was why something was required onsite, and it was not being provided onsite. Board Member Hirsch remarked that the façade had been set back and there was the possibility of having a layby area on that frontage, even though it conflicted with a with a bike passage. Putting it on a side street would not work because there were not many side streets. Planning Manager Raybould asked if there should be a curb onto the site for drop-off/pick-up. Board Member Hirsch felt there should be a curb onto the site for drop-off/pick-up, but it should be studied relative to the San Antonio frontage. The issue appeared to be a major problem. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 94     Page 12 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Vice Chair Adcock asked how the project next door was doing the drop-off. Planning Manager Raybould explained that the project next door had a K-turn. Vice Chair Adcock stated it might be necessary to reduce parking for pick-up/drop-off, delivery, etc., areas. Vice Chair Adcock explained that moving the lobby would be a successful massing design. Board Member Hirsch stated the project had to come together with the San Antonio study. Vice Chair Adcock suggested moving more of the bike parking to the San Antonio side to accommodate loading on the Leghorn side. Planning Manager Raybould provided the following summary: There should be further evaluation of the turning radius in the garage and the parking space design (part of the parking space design was partially related to the electrical), the project being designed with limited parking but not including drop-off/pick- up, and improved bicycle areas and pedestrian entrances, etc. Two board members expressed the need for more parking. Coordination with the San Antonio Road Study was required. Consideration should be given to distances from gates to parking spaces. There should be further study of the lobby for parcel pick-up/drop-off and mailboxes. The tiling material should be more orange than pink. Consideration should be given to locating the trash close to an elevator and to Leghorn and adding another elevator if the trash remained where proposed. Code might require adding another elevator; the 200-foot distance should be investigated. Relatedly, access to the garage and exterior from the second elevator should be considered. It was encouraged that the units to be designed to accommodate a larger cross-section of people. Some of the spaces with borrowed light should be reconsidered to go beyond the code to make a more pleasant environment, such as having bedroom windows. Consideration should be given making common spaces larger and having smaller bathrooms. Planning Manager Raybould asked if kid-friendly environment should be added. Board Member Rosenberg was less concerned about the building not being family-oriented since the units would be rentals. Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch agreed. Board Member Rosenberg noted that 2 board members wanted it to be more family oriented and 3 board members did not mind the way it was currently designed. Ms. Raybould asked if a cross-section of people should be considered. Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch answered that it was market driven. Vice Chair Adcock addressed the family-friendly topic and suggested refining the design to provide more family space whether for couples or kids. Board Member Jojarth added that common areas/outdoor space should be refined to provide more space whether for adults or kids. The window placements for this project and the 808 project should be coordinated. Ms. Raybould added that the window placement related to the balconies interior to the courtyard facing neighbors should be coordinated with light, air, and view considerations, and balcony placement should be refined. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 95     Page 13 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Chair Chen inquired if there were opinions for consistent balcony railings. Vice Chair Adcock was fine with 2 kinds of balconies to allow more privacy were needed. Chair Chen referenced Sheet A10.2 and suggested there be consistency in materials and railing types. Board Member Jojarth was concerned that balconies could be used for storage and preferred that the bottom part be solid and the top glass or that frosted glass be used. Board Member Hirsch supported using frosted glass. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to discourage storage on balconies. Board Member Hirsch suggested discouraging storage on balconies with lease arrangements and separating the 2 balconies by a few feet on the north end of the façade on San Antonio Road. If not separated, there should be a side panel to create privacy between the units. The applicant acknowledged that storage on balconies was discouraged with lease arrangements. Board Member Jojarth noted that a side panel could be an interesting architectural feature. Vice Chair Adcock requested the applicant consider separating the 2 balconies on the east end of San Antonio and possibly placing balconies off the bedrooms. MOTION: Chair Chen moved to continue the project to a date uncertain, seconded by Board Member Rosenberg. VOTE: Motion carried, 5-0 [The ARB took a 5-minute break] 3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Public Comment None. MOTION: Chair Chen nominated Vice Chair Adcock as Chair for the next term, seconded by Board Member Rosenberg. Vice Chair Adcock accepted the nomination. Chair Chen voiced that Vice Chair Adcock was qualified to be Chair and looked forward to handing it over to her. Board Member Rosenberg added that Vice Chair Adcock was smart, competent, and ferocious, which would serve the ARB well. Board Member Jojarth commented that it had been a pleasure of working Vice Chair Adcock on the California Avenue Activation Project, and she had a deep expertise and always provided written feedback, which was impressive, and he learned a lot from her. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 96     Page 14 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Chair Chen moved to Vice Chair nominations. MOTION: Vice Chair Adcock moved to nominate Board Member Rosenberg as Vice Chair, who had previously been Chair and Vice Chair and ran the ARB very effectively, seconded by Chair Chen. Board Member Rosenberg thanked Vice Chair Adcock and Chair Chen for the nomination and appreciated the faith in her. Board Member Rosenberg would be happy to serve as Vice Chair. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 16, 2026 Senior Planner Steven Switzer noted that all board members were present at the April 16, 2026 meeting, so there was no need for any abstentions from voting. MOTION: Chair Chen moved to approve the April 16, 2026 meeting minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Board Member Rosenberg asked, with Chair Chen being absent next week, if Board Member Adcock would Chair the meeting. Senior Planner Steven Switzer confirmed that Board Member Adcock would Chair the meeting next week. Virtual Public Comment None. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 11:24 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of May 21, 2026     Packet Pg. 97     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: July 16, 2026 Report #: 2607-6540 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 4, 2026 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of June 4, 2026 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 98     Page 1 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting DRAFT MINUTES: Thursday, June 4, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mousam Adcock, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: Board Member Yingxi Chen Chair Adcock welcomed everyone to the meeting. The clerk called roll and declared a quorum. Vice Chair Rosenberg welcomed the new chair and stated the group is excited for her leadership. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes planned for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, announced that the June 18 meeting is canceled due to a lack of quorum, no new ARB projects were received since the last meeting, and the Economic Development Committee has reviewed the shrink wrap affecting downtown properties and the retail ordinance. ACTION ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [26PLN-00050]: Request for Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Six- Story Parking Garage with 266 Parking Spaces Replacing Existing Parking Lot D. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Downtown Parking Garage Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2017052040) Has Been Prepared. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). Board Member Jojarth disclosed that he has a conflict of interest with the property to be discussed and excused himself from the chambers. Vice Chair Rosenberg disclosed that she visited the site and asked if this is the second time ARB has reviewed this property, which was confirmed. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 99     Page 2 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Chair Adcock disclosed she visited the site. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation on the proposed City parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue, including the project location, overview, plans and elevations, materials, and plaza design. This project came to ARB for a study session on December 4, 2025, and was revised in response to ARB comments. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced Packet Page 11 and asked for clarification on the timeline. Holly Boyd, Assistant Director of Public Works, confirmed the design contract was awarded to Watry in 2015. They got through the certification of the EIR and approval of planning before Council put it on hold in February 2019, due to lack of interest and funding. In late 2024, a new contract with Watry went to Council with various options, including the area to be set aside for future affordable housing. Council approved Option 1A, which included a 6-story parking garage and the area set aside on the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. Board Member Hirsch asked about the garbage removal included in the plan and noted that other commercial facilities there take care of their own garbage. Ms. Boyd said the properties along Waverley all have their own garbage and oil separators, except Lot 85, which uses the parking lot for that. The City plans to enter into agreement with the property and business owner to accommodate their refuse in the planned garage in exchange for payment. Discussions have not started on that but similar setups were done in previous parking garages, such as the Lot R Garage on Alma Street. Chair Adcock asked if the trash area in the garage intends to serve the future housing development or is only for garage cleanup. Ms. Boyd clarified that the trash area is only for the garage and Lot 85. The future affordable housing will need their own refuse area. Board Member Hirsch asked if anyone has studied the section set aside for affordable housing and voiced concerns about it having underground issues related to the garage. Ms. Boyd responded that, in 2025, the City worked with the Watry and Hayes Group to come up with preliminary feasibility sketches of how that affordable housing could look. They talked to an affordable housing partner, Alta, to check feasibility, which Alta confirmed. Utilities for that housing would need to come off the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. Ken Hayes, Principal at the Hayes Group, thanked Public Works and staff for helping get the application to ARB. Mr. Hayes presented an overview of the project's location, neighboring historic resources and commercial buildings, and garage program. The garage will be 6 levels with 266 parking stalls, 42 bike spaces, trash enclosure, and plaza. Hayes Group is collaborating with the Public Art Program to include a public art piece at the site. Future solar panels are planned for the rooftop. Mr. Hayes outlined the site and design constraints, preliminary options, elevations, materials, landscape plan, and plaza design. PUBLIC COMMENT: Herb Borock pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan requires that when parking spaces are removed from a lot, they need to be provided someplace else. Mr. Borock stated that because the project at Lot D will make up for spaces lost at Lot T on Lytton Avenue, the projects are Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 100     Page 3 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 connected and should be considered together per the environmental quality act. Mr. Borock said there used to be a self-cleaning public toilet at the corner of the lot, which needs to be replaced as part of the proposed affordable housing project. Regarding access for pedestrians and bicyclists, Mr. Borock stated that the signal and cycle times vary at the intersection of Gilman and Waverley, whether cycling automatically or responding to traffic demand on Gilman. Mr. Borock recommended determining how traffic is managed there and seeing if Transportation wants to change that in any way and making that part of ARB's approval. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, responded to public comment that, while the City desires and plans to replace the parking, it is not legally required. Ms. Raybould noted that the Lot T and Lot D projects have independent utility, are not required to be analyzed together under CEQA, and are being analyzed separately. Related to public comment, Vice Chair Rosenberg believed the project did not include or require a public bathroom facility, which Mr. Hayes confirmed. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked which kind of ginkgo trees are planned for the landscaping and noted some varieties emit an unpleasant smell. John Potis, Landscape Architect at Merrill Morris Partners, clarified that female ginkgo trees have fruit that smells like vomit. Mr. Potis noted it is rare to get a female tree by accident. If that happens, the tree will be replaced. Vice Chair Rosenberg pointed out the triangular planting space on the landscaping plan and asked if there is any desire to put a climbing vine there. Mr. Potis confirmed that a climbing vine is planned. Board Member Hirsch noted the variety of access points to this property, with the major one being on the corner. Mr. Hayes replied that the corner is considered the main pedestrian entry for those who do not need to take the elevator and added that those going down the stairs get a view of the post office opposite. Board Member Hirsch pointed out how the paseo turns the corner and heads toward CVS, where the CVS back door is closed and there is no need for access, and wondered if the distance maintained there is for garbage removal. Mr. Hayes opined that the alley system in Palo Alto is very cool and the site designers tried to enhance the alley access for people cutting through. Mr. Hayes added that they have to be at least 10 feet back to accommodate the unprotected openings for ventilation, which avoids putting a ventilation system in the garage. The 16 feet allows for pedestrian access and stormwater treatment area. Ms. Boyd added that they need to maintain car access for private parking behind the AT&T building. Board Member Hirsch asked if there is any flexibility in the width of that area. Mr. Hayes explained that 6½ feet is raised planters for stormwater treatment. There are transformers and switches above grade at the very rear of the building, so the trash enclosure has doors that open to that alley but the plans do not envision GreenWaste trucks coming down the alley. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 101     Page 4 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Board Member Hirsch acknowledged the significant effort to have the ends of the vehicular way open and light-filled from the perimeter surfacing. Board Member Hirsch asked if they maintained light consistency there in anticipation of the future housing. Mr. Hayes explained that wherever the wall of the housing is defined is from the edge of that front perforated metal and the solid wall of the building. The back portion of the building, where there is metalwork along the paseo, will need to be filled in when the housing is built next door because that becomes a firewall. Board Member Hirsch asked if that light-filled perimeter could be maintained if the housing were separated by a lightwell with an easement. Mr. Hayes replied there are many ways to go about keeping that feature but it is a matter of how desirable the site remains for getting a reasonable yield. Mr. Hayes thought the massing diagram showed the anticipated housing having 5 floors with 3 units per floor. If that was carved out at the back in order to have an unprotected opening, the housing would have to have a solid wall facing the metalwork. If it was a lightwell, the housing wall facing the parking garage would have to be solid and the lightwell would be 10 feet. Chair Adcock pointed out that if the housing perimeter wall is 10 feet away from the metal screen, the housing cannot have any windows facing that unless they move another 10 feet back. Mr. Hayes confirmed the housing could not have traditional windows facing that garage wall 10 feet away. Mr. Hayes added that in the initial studies they showed Council, they had all circulation along that side, with an elevator, 2 stairs, and mechanical spaces, and the housing was oriented toward Waverley, the paseo, and Hamilton for its light and air. Board Member Hirsch noted that having the garage corner seen is an important visual and wanted to see sketches suggesting how the housing could work relative to the garage. Mr. Hayes responded that the packet includes a couple pages showing what the future housing massing might look like. Vice Chair Rosenberg said they are Sheets 3.12 and 3.13. Board Member Hirsch said it wasn't a very specific sketch and he was more interested in seeing setback lines, a visual of how well the garage will be seen relative to the massing, and a sense of the lightwell or means of separation between the garage and housing. Mr. Hayes said if they have a firewall at the edge of the garage, which is the solid wall, they could do whatever they want on the housing side of it. They could have a skylight that washes that wall with light and the housing on the other side of that could have the circulation awash in light, though that is not seen much in low-income housing. Board Member Hirsch recommended an open area between the buildings and some form of easement that allows that to remain for the sake of the garage. Mr. Hayes asked staff if the garage and housing would remain a single property or be subdivided. Ms. Boyd was unsure if it will be subdivided and emphasized that Council's direction was to reserve an area for future housing and move forward with this garage. Vice Chair Rosenberg believed there was no timeline or anything started for that housing project, which Ms. Boyd confirmed there was not. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 102     Page 5 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Chair Adcock asked if the garage would continue to be City-owned and the housing would be a City- owned building and rental property. Ms. Boyd was unsure and thought the City would own and lease the land but not own the building. Board Member Hirsch suggested it may be something like a 100-year ground lease. Chair Adcock referenced an image of what the garage might look like with housing in place. Chair Adcock noted that part of the housing is shown notching back while the pedestrian diagram shows the stair and pedestrian access angling into the housing property. Chair Adcock asked if that walkway would be maintained by the housing owner and if this is a concern. Mr. Hayes said that housing project developed there needs to take that into consideration as a site constraint. In one housing sketch, they created a notch between the 2 buildings, which creates an open space under the cantilevered portion of the housing for pedestrian access and addresses the fire separation issue. Mr. Hayes emphasized that these housing outlines have not been presented to anybody. The alternate housing sketch is shown completely set back 10 to 15 feet to allow the corner of the garage to be exposed. The first sketch leaves the façade back on that left-hand portion but cantilevers the housing portion closer to the corner to get more floor area for housing while keeping the ground level open for pedestrians. Chair Adcock acknowledged the unknown of the future housing and said that while the splaying out of the stair is nice, they should consider leaving a 5-foot walkway within the garage's rectangle instead of into the rectangle for future housing. Mr. Hayes agreed the stair will need to pull back if they strike a line in line with the solid vertical wall defining the plaza and garage. That space is open in both housing options shown, so an easement may be needed to allow pedestrian access. Vice Chair Rosenberg pointed out how the landscaping diagram on Packet Sheet 4.1 shows the stair looking much skinnier at the base with ample space to walk past it without imposing on the plaza. Gordon Knowles, Principal at Watry Designs, Inc., explained that what is shown on the landscape design is a slightly earlier version where they studied a 5-foot opening for the stair. The architectural plans and renderings show a wider flare and grander stair, which was a takeaway from the previous informal review by ARB. Mr. Knowles said they talked about keeping that corner as open and grand as possible, so that stair flexed and would require an easement to allow the pedestrian area to open up on that corner. Mr. Knowles said that an ARB concern heard last time was about creating a tiny pedestrian exit but the stair can be narrowed to a more typical width. Mr. Knowles stated the flare is more for design and urban impact and noted they are restricted on moving the stair too far back because of the drive isle on the upper levels; moving that back would move the circulation into a tight parking plan. Chair Adcock asked about the PV canopy. Mr. Hayes confirmed the rendering where the top looks solid is the PV and without the PV, it is beams and open. Chair Adcock asked if the parking garage is required to provide PV by 2025. Ms. Boyd shared that, in the past, they have tried to add PV because it is the perfect installation on City parking garages. Ms. Boyd believed the current code does not require PV but imagined the PV installation would be bid as an add alternate to the project when it goes to construction, similar to a recent Cal Ave garage. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 103     Page 6 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Mr. Knowles added that they often have PV on garages associated with office buildings to provide demand for that. Because this project is a standalone parking garage, they have more exceptions and fewer limitations. Chair Adcock asked if the garage will be sprinklered, which Mr. Knowles confirmed. If the PV canopy is added and becomes a coverage, they would provide sprinkler under the canopy. Chair Adcock noted the fencing along the paseo and asked for elaboration on that and whether there is any egress from Tai Pan or next door. Mr. Hayes said there needs to be a gate coming out of that fence because there is a rear exit from Tai Pan and there needs to be a gate from this building because they have their own trash there. The fence will hide the back of the buildings in a consistent way but will need to have gate perforations in it. Board Member Hirsch asked if they will be maintaining their garbage in open areas behind their building and bring it out during garbage collection. Mr. Hayes thought they would bring it out on collection day, although it is fairly close and GreenWaste will move garbage containers as long as they are within 25 feet of the property line. Chair Adcock noted the fence goes to the end of the garage and it is open past that. Chair Adcock asked staff about removal of the public restroom at this location and if there was any discussion about providing that public amenity again. Ms. Boyd responded that the public restroom on that corner was removed 3 or 4 years ago and the City does not want to install a restroom at any of its garages at this time. Board Member Hirsch stated that access to the elevator is remote relative to the entrance and architectural element at the front corner of the building. Board Member Hirsch said more activity should be invited to the front corner to make it functional and recommended the elevator be closer to the front of the building with clear access and handicapped parking for easy access. Board Member Hirsch noted there is more parking in the front of the building than the rear, so the front is likely to fill up well. Mr. Knowles explained that the location of the elevator and stair core to the northwest of the plan is a result of the geometry of the parking ramp and circulation, which needs a certain length to move floor to floor and make those rotations. The south area on the plan is the only place with enough depth to make an efficient parking and ramp plan. In the 2019 design, they had an elevator further east on the plan but that area is now allotted for future residential. Mr. Knowles said placing the elevator more centrally puts it within the parking area and the garage would lose parking stalls. Board Member Hirsch thought if the elevator was not in the back, they could compress the stair and get replacement parking in that same location. Board Member Hirsch stated that Palo Alto's standard downtown parking garages have everything at the corner next to the public right-of-way or pedestrian ground-level areas. Board Member Hirsch clarified that he did not mean the parking layout or circulation should change when moving the elevator closer to the main entrance. Mr. Knowles said one of the other considerations is the requirement that the elevator be within 200 feet of any stair that does not have its own elevator, which the current central location of the elevator Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 104     Page 7 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 maintains. If the elevator is moved too far from the stair, they would need a second elevator or to have a stair operating only as a fire egress and not a circulation stair. Vice Chair Rosenburg argued for the elevator to stay where it is for safety reasons because Board Member Hirsch's suggested location is not on the street face, making it more isolated. Vice Chair Rosenburg said that providing a centrally-located circulation space makes it safer to walk through this lot alone at night because it is easy for people to get to their vehicles at a short distance with other people coming and going from that location. Board Member Hirsch clarified his suggested location for the elevator is near the elbow of parking spaces on the ground floor. Mr. Knowles replied that moving the elevator to that spot creates 3 circulation cores. Vice Chair Rosenberg thought the suggested location felt more dangerous because it places the elevator in an island surrounded by vehicles. Board Member Hirsch countered that on any typical floor, people have to walk through a car path anyway and all vehicles going up the ramp could avoid the suggested elevator location. Mr. Knowles noted that the ground floor is where vehicles are entering and exiting and typically paying less attention to their parking and movements and 100 percent of vehicles go through that area. Chair Adcock pointed out that the current elevator location is where all the pedestrian walkways meet. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that most people going up the first 4 flights are likely not using the elevator and this plan puts the elevator where people do not have to cross a vehicle path to get there. Mr. Hayes asserted that the elevator is located where multiple pedestrian paths come together. Mr. Hayes noted that the first studies had the elevator at the main feature stair, but as the design progressed, other pathways were added, and they worked with Watry on travel distance, this location was considered reasonable. Mr. Hayes added that this elevator location was shown at the previous ARB discussion in December and did not come up. Chair Adcock spoke in support of the current elevator location because it is a City garage at an intersection of 2 streets with people using the elevator from 4 different directions and this location is central to all pedestrian pathways. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there are lights down the paseos. Mr. Hayes confirmed they have festoon string lights down the paseos. Board Member Hirsch emphasized that the elevator location needs more study because this is not a typical parking garage and having the elevator at that stair corner would be a benefit. Vice Chair Rosenberg argued for keeping the elevator as designed, which enlivens the back portion of the parking lot that may otherwise be neglected and/or avoided and having that elevator back there is beneficial to people coming from all directions, including the alleyway. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it is a very well-done project and expressed support for it as designed. Chair Adcock expressed thanks for the presentations and thoughtful design and agreed that the elevator is in the ideal location. Chair Adcock stated that planning for an easement from an unknown project is Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 105     Page 8 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 not the best course of action and urged the planners to reduce the width so the walkway is at least 5 feet and all pedestrian walkways are within the design. Chair Adcock applauded the beautiful materials and proportional, appealing design. Chair Adcock acknowledged that PVs are nor required but hoped PVs could be added now because it is a good investment for public benefit and it is rare for projects to add PV later. Board Member Hirsch said the project and materials are very nice and the concept of the corner treatment is going to be amazing and distract from the ugliness of the AT&T building. Board Member Hirsch said the plan requires caution regarding how to keep it easily identified from down the street once housing is added. Board Member Hirsch hoped the façade of the housing could be kept back and suggested they recommend strongly to Council through Planning to maintain the aesthetic of the garage, specifically keeping the corner visible from everywhere. Board Member Hirsch suggested consideration of moving the elevator to the front, as it only changes the circulation, not the design. Board Member Hirsch said he could not recommend approval of the project today. Vice Chair Rosenberg moved that the ARB recommend approval as presented with a condition of reevaluating the splayed angle of the bottom stair to ensure a 5-foot passage next to it. The motion was seconded by Chair Adcock and passed 2-1-1 (Hirsch no, Jojarth abstained, Chen absent). Board Member Hirsch had nothing further to add regarding his no vote. The ARB took a break from 9:57 a.m. and resumed at 10:05 a.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Request for Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct an Eight-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 228 Rental Apartments. Thirteen (13) Percent of the Units (30 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Lower Income Households. 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 January 9, 2024. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) has Been Prepared. Zoning District: CS (AD); Service Commercial (Automobile Dealership). Kristina Dobkevius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation on the builder's remedy project at 762 San Antonio Road, including the background, ARB review process, location, state law constraints, site plan, materials, key considerations, and CEQA status. Council decision on this project is anticipated for August 2026. The proposed project is 8 stories tall and includes 228 rental units, of which 30 are below-market-rate (BMR) units, and 248 above-ground parking spaces. In August 2025, ARB provided preliminary design feedback that focused on reducing perceived massing, improving architectural articulation, enhancing ground-floor activation, strengthening landscape and open-space design, and improving circulation and rooftop usability. The applicant has since revised the project from 7 to 8 stories, increased the unit count from 178 to 228, and incorporated ARB feedback. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 106     Page 9 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Chair Adcock referenced the project rendering on Slide 9 and asked if the eyebrows shown at the top of the elevation are within the property line. Ms. Dobkevicius responded that this rear façade has a 10-foot setback and offered to find the eyebrow dimensions in the plans. Matt Hengehold, Co-President and General Manager at Hengehold Trucks, provided the applicant presentation. Mr. Hengehold noted his family's long history on the site and hoped for this property to continue serving the community. Mr. Hengehold stated that the design team listened carefully and refined the project in response to ARB feedback. Mr. Hengehold expressed appreciation for ARB's guidance and time spent reviewing the project. Mark Johnson, Founder and Managing Partner at Acclaim Companies, is the developer for the project and spoke about significant changes to the project plan. Mr. Johnson acknowledged Board Member Hirsch for time spent sketching out ideas, meeting, and engaging in constructive dialogue. Mr. Johnson shared a slide summarizing improvements since the previous ARB meeting and said these revisions reflect ARB comments regarding circulation, access, functionality, and pedestrian experience. Chris Lee, Principal at Studio T-SQ, echoed that the design team took ARB's feedback seriously and incorporated much of it to improve the project. Mr. Lee provided further details on the improvements and design, including urban design concepts, floor plans, street elevations, setbacks, façade articulations, and courtyard landscape design. Mr. Lee added that the rear elevation canopy is within the property line and the setback is 10 feet, greater than the required setback of 5 feet. Chair Adcock asked for disclosures regarding this item. Board Member Hirsch disclosed he met with the developers and had previously visited the site. Chair Adcock disclosed she visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg disclosed she visited the site previously but not recently. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Board Member Hirsch asked who will be using the parking spaces in the San Antonio entry area. Mr. Lee replied that the San Antonio Road entrance only serves Level 1 while Levels 2 and 3 will enter from Leghorn. Mr. Lee said there will be no gate before the first area, which can be used for pickup or delivery services and will have about 20 stalls for guest parking. Mr. Lee stated that beyond the gate is all assigned parking. Board Member Hirsch asked if the pickup area works for self-driving pickups like Waymo. Mr. Hengehold said one of the Planning and Transportation commissioners is an employee of Waymo and said Waymos do not go inside buildings at this time. Mr. Lee thought Leghorn would be an option for Waymo because of the secondary lobby there. Mr. Hengehold said Waymo currently picks up in the oil changer's parking lot on the corner. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 107     Page 10 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Vice Chair Rosenberg noted the pet washroom on the first floor inside the garage and wondered where the previously mentioned dog run area is located. Mr. Lee said the fenced dog run area is the entire reverse L shape area on the map. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted the dog wash area is adjacent to the dog run area but not accessible from it, so residents would have to walk from the dog run to the garage and then to the dog wash. Mr. Lee replied that the intention is for a door going out to the run and it was missed on the plan. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it is a small nitpick but the orientation and location of that door should be carefully chosen to consider the movement of animals between the washroom, apartments, and dog run area. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked about unit types and floor plans and noted that pages like A104 are the only indications of what these units will look like. Mr. Lee responded that 90 percent of the units have a layout but because of time constraints and many incorporated changes since last round, 2 or 3 of the special unit types have not been completely figured out, so they elected not to show them. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it is hard to approve a plan without knowing what is going on inside but it appears there is a nice mix of apartment types. Mr. Lee confirmed the mix of apartment types: 9 studios, 121 1-bedrooms, 63 2-bedrooms, and 25 3- bedrooms. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced Page A103, pointed out a 2-bedroom unit on the inner elbow of the building, and voiced concerns about this type of unit not getting enough natural light and air. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that, without a floor plan, it is difficult to assess the layout and functionality of units. Mr. Lee replied that units like this have worked very successfully at other buildings because some people prefer the greater privacy, noise buffer, and less bright lights. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was any consideration to combine that 2-bedroom unit and the neighboring studio into a 3-bedroom unit so it has a longer stretch of windows. Mr. Lee said they can consider that. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked a few questions regarding the enlargement plan on Page L-101. Mr. Lee confirmed that the pool deck shown is on top of Level 3 with 5 levels above it and confirmed that Levels 7 and 8 have sky lounges next to them. Chair Adcock asked for clarification on the parking garage. Mr. Lee confirmed that Level 1 is accessed only from San Antonio and the upper 2 levels from Leghorn and all parking is assigned, so residents know which entrance to use. Chair Adcock noted the area plan intends for no cars to stop on San Antonio, so Waymos or other self- driving cars stopping on the street because they cannot come into the garage is a concern. Ms. Dobkevicius clarified there are no loading spaces on San Antonio or Leghorn. Mr. Lee explained that delivery and pickup will be inside the garage. Chair Adcock acknowledged that the question of how to accommodate self-driving cars is a larger question for the City. Chair Adcock asked about the pool. Mr. Lee said the plan is for a raised pool with an accessible ramp and a fence around it. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted Page L-101 shows it and says plus 2 feet related to the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 108     Page 11 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 pool. Mr. Lee said that half the pool depth extends down into the parking below and half is above for a total depth of 4 feet. Regarding unit types, Chair Adcock noted the units in the building knuckle, aside from 1 floor, are designated as below-market-rate and appear to be in the less desirable corner. Chair Adcock recalled another project that planned on using borrowed light from the living room into the bedroom and asked if that is planned with this. Mr. Lee responded that those units have worked well for other projects and all 3 rooms have windows. Mr. Lee offered to provide unit floor plans to the ARB. Chair Adcock said that the San Antonio side, with the canopies over the balconies, seems organized with the overall composition but the opposite side (Page A331) has eyebrows that cover some, but not all, windows. Mr. Lee responded that the intent was to accentuate the corner and not to have too big an element. Chair Adcock voiced concerns about the western exposure having a lot of heat gain and noted the compositional logic of covering pairs of windows, similar to the San Antonio side of the building, falls apart at the corner, where some windows are not covered. Mr. Lee said the back of the building faces east, so heat gain is less concerning, but offered to look into it. Board Member Jojarth noted comparisons between the previous and current plans. It was confirmed that the plan went from 197 units to 228, total square footage went from 36,000 square feet to 42,000, about 15 percent larger, and amenity space went from about 13,000 square feet to 15,000. Board Member Jojarth recalled previous comments about the development being too big and noted it returned to ARB even bigger. Board Member Jojarth wondered if it will be even bigger at the next meeting and asked what the limit is. Ms. Raybould responded that this project is allowed under builder's remedy but the ARB has the right to provide comments on it. Chair Adcock stated that the development standard applied to this site is the El Camino Real Focus Area, which is at the top of Packet Page 60. Allowable height in El Camino Focus Area is 85 feet and this project is 84 feet. Chair Adcock asked if the builders need a waiver or concession to build it higher than 85 feet. Ms. Raybould said the developer could go higher but it might push them into another level of construction, so they may not be interested in doing that. Under builder's remedy, they could propose it and ask for a waiver. Board Member Hirsch added that the zoning said it was an FAR 4 and therefore conforms to the decisions made for the focus area. Ms. Raybould confirmed that the project was analyzed in comparison to the El Camino Real Focus Area, which is what the City is required to apply to the site under AB 1893. Chair Adcock noted how Level 3 has garage on the interior with residential on the exterior perimeter and asked if it is concrete podium construction with 5 levels on top, so the third-floor units are concrete construction, which Mr. Lee confirmed. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant and noted Palo Alto desperately needs housing. Vice Chair Rosenberg thought it was a wise use of the space and said having 2 garage access points is a clever way to get residential parking off of San Antonio. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted there are always concerns Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 109     Page 12 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 about DoorDash, Amazon, and other deliveries, so designating spots at the entrance off San Antonio and clearly marking them helps a lot. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated trash is always an item and the planners thought about that well. Vice Chair Rosenberg said the project aligns with the area, will be a beautiful addition, and the shape of the lot makes the front façade on San Antonio less imposing while still having a lot of structure. Vice Chair Rosenberg expressed appreciation for the 10-foot setback and the use of one as a dog run. Vice Chair Rosenberg applauded the landscape plans and work-from-home lobby. Board Member Hirsch agreed with previous positive statements by other board members. Board Member Hirsch suggested considering locations for maintenance trucks because they will be needed eventually and recommended handicapped parking near the rear elevator so they have access to the center of the building. Board Member Hirsch thought the fire control room in the front lobby was odd and wondered if it could move to the other side/further north to make a more spacious entrance. Board Member Hirsch applauded the amount of public use spaces and voiced concerns about ramp connections from the lower parking to the next level and asked the developer to make sure that works well for safety's sake. Board Member Hirsch said dividing the bike parking areas and getting them out the side yard is terrific and agreed the façade is wonderful and hopefully sets a standard for articulation of details on San Antonio Road. Board Member Hirsch applauded the scale, material choices, and position and location of the pool for optimal sunshine. Board Member Hirsch said the question of Waymo is a City issue. Board Member Hirsch recalled another project that had a lay-by within the 25- foot setback, which may be a possibility here. Board Member Jojarth clarified that his earlier question came from surprise rather than criticism. Board Member Jojarth said he looked at the table of ARB comments and applicant responses but the big change of increasing the building size by almost 20 percent would have been nice for the applicant or staff to communicate. Board Member Jojarth stated it is great to have this kind of building on San Antonio, which he opined is the new Palo Alto. Board Member Jojarth liked the use of multiple outdoor areas and how the Level 7 open area gives the building a stepped façade. Board Member Jojarth appreciated how the developer met and collaborated with Board Member Hirsch and thanked Board Member Hirsch for his contribution. Board Member Jojarth felt the drop-off area in the Level 1 garage will be hard to use because it is hard to turn around. Board Member Jojarth recommended traffic management measures to ensure safe use of the drop-off, such as mirrors. Board Member Jojarth said the materials are beautiful, façade is balanced, and the design is considerate of neighboring properties. Chair Adcock acknowledged that builder's remedy projects are hard and thanked the applicant for a nice job with the composition and design. Chair Adcock hoped the overall look can be maintained as they go over construction documents. Chair Adcock liked the screen that becomes a trellis at the roof and hoped the structure for it isn't so heavy that it takes away from its lightness. Chair Adcock applauded the amenities, voiced concerns about not having any unit plans, and assumed there are in-unit laundries. Chair Adcock said the pool deck level is lovely and hoped it could be a good size with a depth that families can really enjoy. Chair Adcock appreciated the window proportions and lower sill heights for tenant access to natural light and views. Chair Adcock concluded it is overall a very nice project and very needed housing. Board Member Hirsch moved that the ARB approve acceptance of the project, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg. Motion passed 4-0 (Chen absent). Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 110     Page 13 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 7, 2026 Steven Switzer, Senior Planner, noted that Board Member Jojarth was absent from the May 7 meeting. Vice Chair Rosenberg moved approval of the May 7, 2026, ARB meeting minutes as written, seconded by Chair Adcock. Passed 3-0-1 (Jojarth abstained, Chen absent). BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Mr. Switzer confirmed the next meeting is cancelled. Chair Adcock shared she will be absent July 2, so Vice Chair Rosenberg will lead the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Adcock adjourned the meeting at 11:16 a.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of June 4, 2026     Packet Pg. 111