Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-15 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: January 15, 2026 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Board Member Marton Jojarth, Board Member Kendra Rosenberg Absent: Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch Chair Chen called the meeting to order. Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared a quorum. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer reported that there are no planned items for the February meeting, though a potential joint study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the ARB regarding the Cubberley project may be scheduled. The 2026 meeting calendar was included in the packet and showed the planned absences of Vice Chair Adcock and Board Member Hirsch. Mr. Switzer requested that any additional absences be communicated to staff. Board Member Rosenberg and Chair Chen advised that they would be absent from the June 18, 2026, meeting. Mr. Switzer confirmed these absences would be noted and stated that staff would reevaluate quorum availability as the meeting date approaches. Chair Chen asked when the Board would receive notice regarding the potential joint meeting. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer responded that staff is reviewing potential dates to avoid conflicts with other City-sponsored activities and will distribute a scheduling survey within the next week to the PTC and ARB to assess availability. Staff is considering Wednesday evenings on dates that do not coincide with regular PTC meetings. ACTION ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2100-2400 Geng Road [24PLN-00356]: Recommendation on Site and Design to Demolish Four Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct 65 Three-Story Page 2 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 Buildings Containing 145 For Sale Townhome Units. Thirteen Percent (19) of the Units Would Be Deed Restricted to Low Income Households. The Project Also Includes a Conditional Use Permit for the Residential Use and a Vesting Tentative Map to Merge Two Parcels and Re-Subdivide For Condominium Purposes Which Council will Consider In Conjunction with the Site and Design Application. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on July 8, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) -Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (Embarcadero) with Site and Design and Automobile Dealership Combining Districts. Chair Chen asked whether there were any disclosures for this item. Board Member Rosenberg disclosed that she had visited the site. Chair Chen and Board Member Jojarth stated they had no disclosures. Mr. Switzer provided an overview of the project site, noting that it is located east of Highway 101 off East Bayshore Road and is zoned for research, office, and limited manufacturing combining districts. Adjacent uses were described as the Baylands Athletic Center, a post office, and nearby office parks. The project is undergoing the Site and Design review process and includes an SB 330 application submitted on July 8, 2024, with the formal application filed on December 18, 2024. The project was reviewed by the ARB at a meeting on October 16, 2025, and by the PTC on December 10, 2025, where the PTC recommended City Council approval with conditions. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Parkland Improvement Ordinance on December 16 and recommended approval related to tree impacts along the northern property line adjacent to the athletic center. Mr. Switzer stated this item is before the ARB now for a recommendation to City Council and that Council consideration is tentatively anticipated in March for the final decision. Mr. Switzer explained that the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under Assembly Bill 1893 and therefore cannot be denied based on inconsistencies with the zoning ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The City may only require compliance with applicable objective standards as if the project were proposed on a site that allows the requested density. The proposed floor area ratio of 0.97:1 and density of 13.2 would be permitted in the RM-20 zoning district. It was noted that residential uses in the ROLM(E) district reference RM-20 standards. Mr. Switzer added that the project meets the minimum density requirements and that, under the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant may request waivers from standards that would physically preclude development at the permitted density. Mr. Switzer reviewed feedback from the October 16 ARB meeting, noting that the Board discussed 5 key items: housing typologies, material palette, lighting concerns, grade changes and retaining walls, and rooftop decks. Mr. Switzer noted that the applicant has made efforts to address each item. The housing typologies now include a duplex fronting the common open space in addition to front-loaded, alley-loaded, and row townhomes. The material palette has shifted from high-contrast black-and-white tones to a more subdued color scheme, with paint samples displayed on the dais for Board review. Regarding lighting, Mr. Switzer referenced plan set pages L5.1 and L5.2, which include photometric analysis and proposed fixtures, and noted an added condition requiring compliance with the Dark Sky Lighting Ordinance as detailed in Attachment B. Mr. Switzer discussed grade changes and retaining walls, explaining that flood insurance requirements necessitate raising portions of the site by approximately 2 to 6 feet, with emphasis on the site entrance and placemaking elements, as illustrated on plan set pages L1.4 through L1.6, and described a stepped element along Geng Road in lieu of a 6-foot retaining wall. Finally, Mr. Switzer noted that rooftop decks Page 3 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 are detailed on plan set page A.60 and will feature parapet walls rather than railings, with lighting limited to entrance and exit areas. Mr. Switzer stated that Attachment B in the staff report documents the project’s consistency with the required findings for the Site and Design application and with the City’s housing goals and policies. Attachment B also includes the accompanying Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, which are not within the ARB’s purview. Mr. Switzer reiterated that while the project does not fully comply with all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, the deviations are permitted under State law. The project’s CEQA review includes a completed Section 15183 Initial Study Checklist, which determined the project is consistent with the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the 2023 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Switzer outlined staff’s recommendation to the ARB, noting that it consists of 2 parts: 1) to find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15183 based on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and 2) to recommend City Council approval of the Site and Design application based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the Draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Michael Cohen, Founding Partner at Strada Investment Group, stated that the project proposes to redevelop an existing 11-acre, 4-building office park into 145 townhomes targeted to first-time homebuyers and families. It was noted that the site is zoned for residential use and that the proposed densities and heights are consistent with the City’s Housing Element. Mr. Cohen explained that the project includes 3- and 4-bedroom units, all with 2-car garages and roof decks, with 4 housing types ranging from approximately 1,600 to 3,000 square feet to provide a range of livability options. The site design emphasizes community-building through shared open spaces, pedestrian connections, and a landscape program that increases tree canopy, native species, and understory planting. Mr. Cohen stated that the applicant has worked collaboratively with the City for approximately 1.5 years, that the project received unanimous recommendations from the Planning and the Parks and Recreation Commissions, and that prior ARB feedback helped improve the project. Darian Wagner, Senior Architect at DAHLIN Group, thanked the Board for feedback from the October study session and stated that the project was refined to better serve the community and future homebuyers. Ms. Wagner highlighted key architectural changes, including the addition of a duplex typology, a tot-lot playground, a community garden, and refinements to retaining walls. It was explained that the duplexes provide a transition in density and massing between detached homes and townhomes and are centrally located to balance internal and external site relationships. Ms. Wagner noted that the material palette was softened by reducing stark black-and-white contrasts and carrying cohesive colors across all housing types. Detailing was refined through constructability review, including window trim, roof overhangs at entries, and consistent control joints. Side-yard usability was improved through shared side-use easements for detached townhomes and 10-foot side yards for each duplex, creating 20 feet of separation between duplex buildings. Ms. Wagner stated that rooftop lighting will be limited to a single downlit fixture at each roof deck entry. Daniel Raymond, Landscape Architect at The Guzzardo Partnership, described landscape and site design refinements made in response to prior ARB feedback, focusing on enhancements to the central green as the primary open space. Additional programming was added to improve functionality and variety, including a tot-lot, 2 playground areas which could serve different age groups, and a community garden, supplementing existing amenities such as a games area, picnic space with a stage, and a large lawn for Page 4 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 informal and larger gatherings. Mr. Raymond also discussed revisions along the Geng Road frontage, noting that grading studies allowed the previously proposed single retaining wall to be replaced with 2 terraced walls, softening the edge through additional planting and extending the landscape character into the entry drive. PUBLIC COMMENTS Herb Borock questioned whether a quorum was present, stating that only 3 Board members appeared to be participating, and that the agenda and public notice did not indicate teleconference participation. Chair Chen clarified that the Board consists of 5 members and that a quorum was present. Ms. Armer explained that 3 of the 5 members were participating in chambers and that a 4th member had joined via Zoom but was listening only because teleconference participation had not been properly noticed. Ms. Armer also stated that a quorum was achieved with the 3 members present in chambers. Mr. Borock expressed disagreement with that determination and also questioned the project’s consistency with CEQA Section 15183, asserting that project-specific impacts warrant further evaluation. Mr. Borock raised concerns related to the Airport Influence Area, stating that clearer Comprehensive Plan language should be incorporated to ensure future homeowners are informed of airport noise impacts and related deed restrictions. Mr. Borock also cited the need for additional analysis of earthquake and liquefaction risks, building height limitations accounting for floodplain elevation, potential noise mitigation standards, and sea level rise. Star T. (Zoom) stated that while she had not examined the project in detail, she found the presentation impressive and believed the project would be highly desirable. This commenter expressed support for Mr. Borock, noting his value as a community resource in identifying detailed issues, and encouraged the Board and applicant to consider and address his comments. Mr. Cohen responded that airport proximity impacts were analyzed under CEQA and that the applicant worked closely with City staff, including the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Cohen stated that the avigation easement is a County-drafted form that the applicant accepted as written and added that, although not legally required, the applicant met with the Airport Board to review the project and easement language. Mr. Cohen further stated that the project complies with applicable building code requirements related to airport adjacency. Board Member Hirsch unmuted his microphone virtually. Ms. Armer stated that because notice of Board Member Hirsch’s remote participation and location was not received in time to comply with State law, he would not be able to participate in the meeting and could only listen in with his microphone muted. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether staff had any response to the concerns raised by Mr. Borock. Mr. Switzer responded that the applicant addressed the Airport Influence Area through inclusion of the avigation easement. The project was analyzed for airport-related impacts and, with standard construction techniques, airport noise mitigation measures are expected to result in acceptable sound levels for future residents. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether, based on the comments raised and responses provided, the City was comfortable with the project proceeding as proposed. Mr. Switzer responded in the affirmative. Page 5 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 Board Member Rosenberg asked the applicant whether the existing connection shown on Sheet A.6 between East Bayshore Road and the southern portion of the site would be maintained to provide multiple points of ingress and egress, or whether that connection would be abandoned. Board Member Rosenberg stated that while the connection may not be entirely within the applicant’s control, maintaining it would be beneficial. Mr. Cohen responded that the intent is to maintain the existing connection. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether a purchaser could buy 2 adjacent duplex units and internally connect them, or whether provisions would prevent that. Mr. Cohen responded that combining duplex units had not been considered and was unsure whether such a modification would be permitted, noting that the units are intentionally designed as individual homes. Mr. Cohen added that, if necessary, a deed restriction could be imposed to prohibit internal connections in order to preserve the unit count. Ms. Wagner added that, from a building code perspective, the duplexes are classified as 2-family dwellings and that any internal connection between units would require a permit to convert the structure to a single-family residence. Board Member Rosenberg asked about Unit 21 shown on Sheet A.43, noting that the ground-floor bathroom is depicted as a future option, and questioned how that approach aligns with age-in-place requirements, including whether the unit would be required to include the bathroom to meet accessibility standards. Board Member Rosenberg noted that age-in-place standards were not a firm requirement at the time of application submittal. Mr. Cohen responded that, to his understanding, the requirement is for adaptable bathroom facilities and deferred to staff for confirmation. Ms. Wagner stated that the requirement is governed by the building code and clarified that the units must be adaptable rather than fully age-in-place compliant. Board Member Rosenberg questioned whether adaptability would require a ground-floor bathroom with a shower and bedroom space. Ms. Wagner responded that adaptability requirements apply only to the ground-floor bathrooms in the 10 percent of townhouse units designated as adaptable, noting that the dashed-in bathroom on the plans reflects required clearances for those units. Ms. Wagner further clarified that adaptable units are distinct from age-in-place requirements. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether any noise mitigation measures related to airport proximity are proposed, including triple-pane windows, sound-attenuation walls, or other construction features. Mr. Cohen responded that the project complies with applicable building code requirements for sound mitigation and that CEQA analysis actually identified freeway traffic as the primary noise source, not the airport. Mr. Cohen added that triple-pane windows are not proposed. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether the duplex units would be separated by a full party wall with enhanced sound mitigation, and Mr. Cohen confirmed that they would. Board Member Jojarth referenced a prior discussion regarding housing typologies, specifically the possibility of providing condominium units on the site, including Units 50 through 53, and asked whether the applicant had further considered that option. Mr. Cohen responded that the applicant considered alternative housing typologies but concluded that a for-rent multifamily building would not be feasible for the site due to layered constraints, including soil conditions, parking limitations, and financial viability. Mr. Cohen explained that surface parking would significantly reduce unit count, while subterranean parking would be cost-prohibitive, and noted that the project has been intentionally pursued as a for-sale community for first-time homebuyers. Mr. Cohen added that introducing a Page 6 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 multifamily building would fundamentally alter the project, require restarting the approval process, and would not be compatible with the site. Board Member Jojarth questioned whether any permitting tradeoffs, such as flexibility related to parking, fill requirements, building height, or other waivers, could make an alternative housing typology financially feasible for the project. Mr. Cohen responded that no permitting tradeoffs would make an alternative typology feasible, stating that they had evaluated those options prior to and throughout the process. Mr. Cohen explained that the project was intentionally designed to align with zoning and design standards, remain within mid-range density limits, and respond to site constraints, including proximity to the Baylands. Mr. Cohen added that he believes the proposed project represents the appropriate balance of tradeoffs to deliver housing at this site. Chair Chen asked about the inclusion of shallow sloped roof areas shown on Sheet A.9, noting that they appear on some detached homes and duplexes, and inquired whether those elements were intentional in contrast to the predominantly flat roofs and parapet walls. Ms. Wagner explained that the roofs shown with a slight slope are not truly flat and include a minimum slope of approximately ¼ to ½ inch per foot to allow for drainage, as required by building code. Ms. Wagner further clarified that the slope may be perceptible on certain elevations but that most roof areas are designed with parapet walls or flat roof conditions and that drainage would occur via a drip edge. Ms. Wagner added that while the slope may be visible on drawings, it would likely not be noticeable when experienced in person. Chair Chen asked about the varying parapet wall heights shown on the townhouses on Sheet A.22 and how transitions at corners would be detailed. Ms. Wagner explained that the changes in parapet height are intentional to allow parapet walls to transition and terminate more naturally, with continuous coping used to maintain consistent detailing, and to avoid a flat roofline by adding visual interest and variation. Ms. Wagner clarified that parapet heights vary both for visual interest and, at roof deck areas, to meet guard height requirements, while other areas accommodate functions such as open space and solar panels. Board Member Rosenberg expressed overall support for the project, stating that it achieves a thoughtful mix of housing typologies and is well designed to function as a family-oriented community with a range of unit sizes and price points. While she reiterated interest in apartment-style housing for larger sites, Board Member Rosenberg found the applicant’s explanation regarding feasibility and unit sizing persuasive and stated that she was comfortable with the proposed approach. Board Member Rosenberg commented that, although the exterior architecture felt somewhat subdued, she appreciated the strong floor plans, inclusion of ground-floor bedrooms and bathrooms in most units, and the project’s emphasis on livability. Board Member Rosenberg noted a remaining concern regarding the lack of a ground-floor bathroom in Unit 21 for age-in-place considerations but acknowledged compliance with applicable code requirements, and she emphasized the importance of maintaining multiple access points for emergency egress. Board Member Rosenberg expressed appreciation for the applicant’s responsiveness to Board comments and recognized the challenges of the process. Board Member Jojarth expressed appreciation for the applicant’s responsiveness to prior ARB feedback, particularly the improvements to grading, retaining walls, and the refined color palette. However, concern was raised that, given the large scale of the site, the project does not provide sufficient variation in housing typologies and architectural expression, stating that the overall site plan appears monotonous. Board Member Jojarth commented that while different typologies are included, they feel Page 7 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 like variations of the same form and do not achieve the level of diversity he would expect for a development of this size. Board Member Jojarth stated that although it is a Builder’s Remedy project and has received favorable review from the PTC, he found it difficult to fully support the project from an ARB perspective. Chair Chen expressed general support for the project, stating that the applicant did a strong job with the site plan, circulation, parking, building design, and material selection. It was noted that the project successfully provides family-oriented units without pushing to an extreme despite its Builder’s Remedy status. Chair Chen appreciated the applicant’s responsiveness to prior ARB feedback and highlighted the stepped retaining walls as improving the street frontage and creating a more welcoming public presence. She commended the enhanced open space amenities, including play areas and community gardens, as contributing to a cohesive and inviting community. Chair Chen felt the project would be a positive addition to the City, particularly on the east side of Highway 101. MOTION: Board Member Rosenberg moved, seconded by Chair Chen, to recommend approval of the Site and Design application to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) in Attachment B. VOTE: Motion carried 3-0. Vice Chair Adcock and Board Member Hirsch absent. [The Board took a 9-minute break] 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3781 El Camino Real [24PLN-00161]: Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Commercial and Residential Buildings Located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court, and 388 Curtner Avenue, and to Construct a Seven-Story, Multi-Family Residential Housing Development Project with 183 Units, 13 Percent of Which Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with Builder’s Remedy (California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on February 15, 2024. CEQA Status: Exempt Under AB 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66). Zoning Districts: CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential). Chair Chen asked whether there were any disclosures. Board Member Rosenberg, Chair Chen, and Board Member Jojarth disclosed they had visited the site. Mr. Switzer stated that, for purposes of the staff report and presentation, the project address is identified as 3781 El Camino Real. The site is located at the corner of Curtner Avenue and El Camino Real, consisting of 4 assessor parcels within 2 zoning districts, Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and Multi-Family Residential (RM-30). Surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial and residential development, with residential uses to the north, including a recently constructed project that received a 2025 ARB design award, and additional residential buildings at the rear of the site. Mr. Switzer outlined the project review history, stating that an SB 330 application was submitted in February 2024, followed by a Major ARB application on June 10, 2025. On September 22, 2025, the applicant requested consideration under AB 130, which staff evaluated and found to be consistent with applicable requirements. The project is before the ARB at this meeting for a recommendation, and City Council consideration is tentatively anticipated in March. Mr. Switzer provided a project overview, noting that Page 8 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 the proposal includes demolition of approximately 10,100 square feet of commercial floor area on 2 front parcels, while the 2 rear parcels contain 14 existing residential units on Madeline Court. The project would consist of a 7-story building with a height of approximately 83 feet and a total of 183 units, including 23 below-market-rate units meeting the 13 percent Builder’s Remedy affordability requirement. The project would provide 215 parking spaces, including EV and tandem spaces, as well as 183 long-term and 18 short-term bicycle parking spaces. Mr. Switzer also noted that the project includes tree removals and a Certificate of Compliance for the merger of the 4 parcels. Mr. Switzer framed the discussion by explaining that the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under AB 1893 and therefore may not be denied based on inconsistencies with the zoning code or Comprehensive Plan, with the City limited to applying objective standards applicable to the requested density. The project complies with those requirements and may utilize waivers and concessions under the State Density Bonus Law. Mr. Switzer reviewed the site plan, noting vehicular access from Curtner Avenue, and described the building organization, including coworking space and a pet spa on Floor 1, residential amenities along El Camino Real, and parking located toward the rear of the site. Floor 2 includes a 2-story residential amenity space and additional parking, while Floor 3 incorporates podium- level open space with stepbacks of approximately 5 to 10 feet along the northern edge to respond to adjacent residential uses. Floors 4 through 7 contain residential units and open space at the Curtner Avenue/El Camino Real intersection. Mr. Switzer reviewed the roof plan, elevations, and renderings, highlighting material transitions between garage and residential levels, stepbacks, retained street trees along El Camino Real, and the primary building entrances and amenity areas. Mr. Switzer reiterated that the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and therefore may not be denied based on inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan, noting that those inconsistencies are identified in Attachments D and F. The project is afforded applicable waivers and concessions. The City evaluated the project under AB 130 and found it to be eligible. Mr. Switzer explained that AB 130 exempts qualifying housing infill projects and establishes strict timelines following completion of tribal consultation. Mr. Switzer noted that draft conditions of approval included in the packet reflect standard language and may be modified prior to City Council consideration to address potential archaeological or tribal cultural resource impacts. The tribal consultation is expected to conclude this month, with final conditions incorporated before Council action. Mr. Switzer stated that staff recommends the ARB forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the project based on the findings in Attachment B and the conditions of approval in Attachment C, noting that conditions related to cultural and tribal resources would be updated with language agreed upon through tribal consultation prior to Council consideration. Board Member Rosenberg asked why tribal consultation was being discussed for this project. Mr. Switzer explained that AB 130 establishes mandatory timelines and requires tribal notification following invocation of the statute, allowing tribes the opportunity to comment on potential cultural or archaeological impacts and informing any modifications to standard conditions of approval. Current Planning Manager Claire Raybould added that the presence of existing development does not preclude tribal cultural resources, explaining that notification is required for projects subject to CEQA review, including those supported by an MND, for Comprehensive Plan amendments under SB 18 and under AB 130, noting that while tribes do not always request consultation, some recent projects have generated concerns. Page 9 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 Chair Chen asked staff to confirm whether the project would return to the ARB for further review. Ms. Raybould responded that, due to the strict timelines imposed under AB 130, the project is not expected to return to the ARB and that the item was noticed as a recommendation accordingly. Chair Chen asked for clarification regarding project setbacks, noting that the plan set appears to show the lots combined while the staff report references them separately. Mr. Switzer responded that the 4 parcels would be merged and explained that setback ranges are measured from adjacent properties, as outlined in Attachment D comparing zoning consistency. In some locations, setbacks are noted as not applicable where the condition reflects an internal connection within the merged site. Chair Chen asked for clarification regarding daylight plane requirements, particularly within the El Camino Real Focus Area and where the project abuts residential zoning. Mr. Switzer responded that a daylight plane is not required for the front parcels because they abut another CN district and is also not applicable to the rear parcels due to their RM-30 zoning. While residential uses are located to the rear of the site, the project complies with applicable code requirements and housing incentives associated with the El Camino Real Focus Area. Board Member Rosenberg inquired what the final zoning designation would be once the parcels are combined. Mr. Switzer explained that the site would retain split zoning, noting that the applicant is not requesting a zone change and that parcel merger does not require rezoning for the proposed development. Marissa Reilly, Senior Project Manager at Sares Regis Group, introduced the project at 3781 El Camino Real and stated that, despite the expedited entitlement process, the applicant sought to deliver a thoughtfully designed and contextually sensitive project consistent with the City’s vision for the El Camino Real Focus Area. The project team includes BDE Architecture, The Guzzardo Partnership, and Kier & Wright, and the property is owned by the Giovannotto Family, longtime Palo Alto residents. Ms. Reilly highlighted community benefits of the proposal, including 183 residential units with 23 affordable units supporting the City’s RHNA obligations, a range of unit types from studios to 3-bedroom units, proximity to transit, and adjacency to both affordable multifamily and single-family neighborhoods. Nathan Simpson, Architect at BDE Architecture, presented updated renderings and described the project’s contemporary design with timeless elements, including brick and plaster façades, traditional window proportions, and selective corner window accents to reduce visual repetition. Wood soffit accents at amenity areas, including the fitness center and rooftop canopy, would soften the building’s pedestrian-scale appearance, while setbacks and stepbacks, including a 10-foot setback on Floors 1 and 2, additional 3rd-floor stepbacks, and wider setbacks along Curtner Avenue, help screen service functions and reduce massing. Mr. Simpson highlighted amenities such as a south-facing courtyard with spas, a double-height fitness center at the Curtner/El Camino corner, and extensive glazing that improves street-level experience while concealing parking. The project emphasizes pedestrian experience through a recessed entry, landscaped and gated perimeter walkways, a dog run, and planted buffers that also accommodate fire and life safety access. Mr. Simpson also described sustainability features, including an all-electric design, rooftop solar, EV charging, appliances with enhanced water and energy efficiency, stormwater treatment, bicycle parking, and transit access, adding that avoiding subterranean parking reduces the project’s carbon footprint. Mr. Simpson concluded that the project is fully residential, below the FAR limit, consistent with El Camino Real Focus Area standards, exceeds parking requirements, provides affordable housing, and incorporates facade variation and active ground-floor frontages. Page 10 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Santori, a resident of Curtner Avenue, raised concerns regarding parking availability, stating that many current residents have 2 vehicles, and questioned whether overflow parking would impact Curtner Avenue. The commenter also expressed concern about potential traffic congestion at the Curtner Avenue and El Camino Real intersection, particularly related to ingress and egress from the parking structure during peak hours. Mr. Santori further asked whether the project would eliminate existing commercial uses, including a popular restaurant on the corner, without providing replacement commercial space. Ms. Reilly responded by explaining that the project provides a parking ratio slightly above 1:1, exceeding the El Camino Real Focus Area standard, and acknowledged existing parking constraints along Curtner Avenue. Ms. Reilly stated that traffic impacts are expected to be mitigated by changing work patterns and the project’s emphasis on multimodal access, including transit and bicycling, rather than reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. Ms. Reilly confirmed that the project does not include retail uses and is proposed as a 100 percent residential development. Board Member Rosenberg raised concern about the absence of an elevator in the northeast portion of the building extending toward the adjacent residential area, noting that only a stairwell is provided and that residents parking in that area would need to travel a longer distance to access an elevator. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether a curb cut and off-street loading area could be provided to accommodate move-in trucks, noting concerns about potential disruption along Curtner Avenue and questioning whether the proposed move-in lobby could be adapted to allow loading to occur off the street. Mr. Simpson responded that the building is programmed with an appropriate number of elevators relative to unit count and that accessibility concerns are mitigated through assigned parking closer to elevators. Regarding the move-in area, Mr. Simpson explained that curbside loading is proposed and that accommodating move-in trucks within the building or on site is not feasible due to clearance requirements, utility constraints, and the resulting loss of parking and building area, noting that oversized or improperly sized trucks could also pose a risk to the structure. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether the circulation space near the move-in lobby and elevator could be widened to better accommodate large furniture and requested clarification on the existing dimensions. Mr. Simpson responded that the design team could explore adjustments as plans continue to be refined, noting that the ground-floor condition functions as an intentional pinch point to prevent damage to narrower upper-floor corridors and units. Chair Chen requested clarification regarding the location and quantity of short-term bicycle parking. Mr. Simpson clarified that 18 short-term bicycle spaces are provided near the main lobby entrance, adjacent to the front door. Chair Chen asked whether an 8-foot clearance is required outside the lobby to maintain an unobstructed pedestrian walkway, noting potential conflicts with the door swing. Ms. Raybould explained that 8 feet is the objective standard, while a minimum of 4 feet is required for ADA and health and safety compliance, and that under the Builder’s Remedy the clearance may be reduced below 8 feet, though 8 feet is preferred. Chair Chen asked for clarification on circulation from the long- term bicycle parking to residential units, including whether residents would pass through first-floor amenity spaces and use the main lobby elevators, requiring longer internal travel. Mr. Simpson confirmed that the circulation described was generally accurate and explained that while some amenity areas would be separated as needed, many first-floor spaces such as mail, parcel, co-working, and leasing areas are designed to be open and integrated, minimizing the number of doors and corridor transitions along the route. Chair Chen asked whether an additional door connecting the bicycle parking Page 11 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 area directly to the garage had been considered to improve internal circulation. Mr. Simpson responded that access control and security considerations guided the design, explaining that limiting the number of doors helps reduce vandalism and theft in bicycle rooms. Board Member Rosenberg suggested evaluating whether circulation between the bicycle parking and garage could be improved by reconfiguring doors, noting that direct access would better accommodate residents loading bicycles into vehicles and reduce travel through amenity spaces. Mr. Simpson acknowledged the suggestion and stated that the design team would review the option. Chair Chen asked about circulation distances to the upper-floor clubhouse, noting that residents on the opposite side of the building may need to walk a considerable distance, and also raised privacy concerns for units located adjacent to elevator and stairwells. Mr. Simpson responded that the building is more compact than comparable projects, with maximum walking distances of approximately 150 feet, and noted that such adjacency conditions are typical, though potential screening could be explored. Chair Chen also requested clarification on courtyard elevation changes, and Mr. Simpson explained that the courtyard is generally flat, with raised spas required for transfer stations and raised planters forming a buffer around residential units. Chair Chen inquired about the height of raised areas needed to accommodate tree planting in the courtyard. Mr. Raymond explained that planter heights vary depending on function, ranging from approximately 20 inches to 42 inches for stormwater planters, with additional soil mounding used to provide adequate root depth for trees. Mr. Raymond clarified that the elements function as raised planters rather than retaining walls, noting that planter heights are generally consistent on both sides, with soil mounded toward the center where needed. Chair Chen asked about the elevation change shown at the building corner, noting that the upper floors appear to project outward, and inquired whether similar conditions occur elsewhere in the project. Mr. Simpson responded that the condition is limited to that location, explaining that the amenity space is intentionally highlighted and includes a setback of approximately 3 to 5 feet, which can be accommodated structurally without added cost. Other portions of the building do not include similar projections and are residential in character. Chair Chen wanted to know about the roof material on the corner of the building above the front lobby, noting that it appears different from other portions of the building. Mr. Simpson explained that while elevations may suggest a different condition, the roof is intended to read as flat from the public perspective, with a shallow gabled structure used to conceal truss work. Board Member Jojarth questioned whether the proposed balconies are driven by code requirements or resident demand, expressing concern that they could contribute to visual clutter and detract from the building’s aesthetics, and suggested eliminating balconies or improving railing quality to achieve a cleaner design. Mr. Simpson responded that residents value private outdoor space and that balconies support market demand, while Ms. Reilly added that balconies also satisfy the City’s requirement for 100 square feet of private open space per unit. Board Member Jojarth noted that waivers could be considered under the Builder’s Remedy and emphasized the importance of architectural quality. Board Member Jojarth also raised concerns that the projection of the 1st and 2nd floors beyond the upper stories creates a visually busy and misaligned appearance, and suggested aligning building lines or adjusting setbacks to achieve a more cohesive form. Mr. Simpson responded that such changes would be significant but could be reviewed. Page 12 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 Board Member Rosenberg questioned the depiction of “required setbacks” on the plan set and requested clarification given the project’s Builder’s Remedy status. Ms. Reilly explained that the notation reflects standard application materials rather than a binding design constraint, which Mr. Switzer confirmed. Mr. Switzer added that while zoning includes setback standards, the Builder’s Remedy allows deviations consistent with State law, and directed the Board to Attachment D for a detailed comparison of compliance and deviations. Board Member Jojarth raised several design concerns, stating that the strong brick articulation and bold horizontal lines at the 1st and 2nd floors create a visually heavy and monotonous appearance, and suggested finding a way to soften the building’s scale. Board Member Jojarth also expressed concern that the Curtner Avenue facade and garage openings appear oversized for the surrounding residential context and suggested exploring finer elements, enhanced landscaping, or alternative screening materials such as wood, architectural metal, or a live wall. Ms. Reilly acknowledged the comments and stated that the design team would revisit these elements. Board Member Jojarth further questioned the high-contrast color palette, and Mr. Simpson responded that the cooler gray tones were intentionally selected to distinguish the project from a nearby development with a warmer palette. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether a materials board was available as the Board had not seen it yet. Board Member Rosenberg reiterated her concern from past meetings regarding interior bedrooms without windows and questioned whether columns shown in the bicycle room encroach into the path of travel. Mr. Simpson responded that the design is at a planning level and that columns will not be located within walkways as the plans are refined. Chair Chen asked for clarification on how the “upper floor” is defined for stepback requirements, noting that stepbacks begin at the 3rd floor rather than the top floor. Mr. Switzer explained that stepbacks apply above approximately 24 feet, or around the 3rd floor, where the podium and open space are located, and noted that stepbacks are provided along El Camino Real and the rear property lines adjacent to residential uses. Chair Chen asked whether the 30-foot window-to-window separation standard applies to a 2-story townhome shown on Sheet AP3.20, noting that the distance appears to be closer to 20 feet. Mr. Switzer responded that staff could confirm the measurement and noted that, as a Builder’s Remedy project, the applicant may request a waiver from that standard. Chair Chen asked whether a smaller area of noncompliant private open space along El Camino Real on the 3rd-floor plan could be extended to the parapet wall, similar to the larger private open space provided at the rear of the building, in order to meet open space requirements. Mr. Simpson responded that the area is located on a podium lid and could be amenitized and assigned to the unit. Mr. Simpson added that planting is proposed along that edge, noting that the design includes a 5-foot setback near the fitness center to accommodate landscaping and ongoing maintenance. Board Member Rosenberg requested that the materials board be shown on camera for the record and noted that the primary stucco color is not true white but a light gray identified as Benjamin Moore Gray Cloud. Mr. Simpson explained that true white is avoided due to maintenance concerns. Board Member Rosenberg expressed her appreciation for the lighter gray tone. Board Member Jojarth expressed concern that the project appears to remain a work in progress and questioned whether it is ready to advance to City Council, citing unresolved issues related to massing, balconies, facade articulation at the 1st and 2nd floors, entrance scale, color contrast, landscaping along El Camino Real, and screening impacts on adjacent residential properties. Board Member Jojarth Page 13 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 remarked that the building reads as overly massive and visually inconsistent with its surroundings, particularly when compared to a nearby award-winning project, and suggested that the design could be significantly refined without affecting density or Builder's Remedy provisions. Board Member Jojarth concluded that, in his view, the project is not yet at a stage appropriate for final consideration despite the anticipated Council timeline. Board Member Rosenberg stated that while she initially shared some concerns raised by other Board members, she found the project increasingly compelling upon further review, particularly praising the concealment of parking along El Camino Real, the south-facing courtyard, and the overall site organization. Board Member Rosenberg expressed concern, however, about the treatment of the parking structure along Curtner Avenue and adjacent residential properties, noting that exposed grates and double-height garage facades feel visually heavy and warrant additional refinement through design or landscaping. Further attention to screening and facade articulation in these areas was encouraged, while noting that the large garage opening felt proportionate to the adjacent glazing. Board Member Rosenberg also suggested expanding balcony areas where feasible on the 3rd floor, including for the below-market-rate units, strongly encouraged consideration of a third elevator to improve daily usability for residents in the rear portion of the building, and reiterated concerns regarding bicycle room circulation and move-in logistics, particularly the impact of moving trucks on Curtner Avenue. Board Member Rosenberg expressed appreciation for the courtyard, fitness amenities, trash layout, balconies, material palette, and use of wood accents. While noting disappointment at the absence of ground-floor commercial space, she acknowledged the constraints. Board Member Rosenberg concluded by stating that she was generally satisfied with the project and believed it would benefit significantly from the proposed landscaping strategy. Chair Chen thanked the applicant for their presentation and expressed support for the provision of housing, noting that the project includes several positive features and presents attractively from the street through vertical articulation, upper-story projections, and a stepped-back clubhouse. Chair Chen raised concern, however, that the 7-story height is out of scale with the surrounding 1- and 2-story developments, particularly when compared to the adjacent Wilton Court project, and stated that a reduced height would be more compatible with the site’s context. While acknowledging the project’s Builder’s Remedy status and the limited discretion available, Chair Chen expressed difficulty making the required ARB Finding #2e related to enhancing living conditions on adjacent residential properties, citing impacts to light and views for nearby neighbors. Staff was asked to clarify whether, given these constraints, the Board’s options are limited to recommending approval or issuing a denial without specific findings. Ms. Raybould clarified that the ARB is providing a recommendation rather than a final decision on the project and may make any recommendation it deems appropriate. The Board was encouraged, regardless of its recommendation, to clearly identify any suggested conditions or project modifications, noting that some issues raised may not be applicable given the project’s status under State law. The Board discussed the motion and, based on comments made during the meeting, added conditions of approval. Board Member Jojarth proposed adding a condition to increase parking to approximately 250 spaces, citing unit mix and anticipated vehicle ownership, and suggested reducing common amenity space to accommodate additional parking. Board Member Rosenberg and Chair Chen responded that the project Page 14 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 meets and exceeds applicable parking requirements and that the Board lacks authority to require additional parking under the Builder’s Remedy, despite acknowledging neighborhood parking concerns. Mr. Switzer confirmed that the project exceeds the El Camino Real Focus Area parking standard of 1 space per unit, and Ms. Raybould explained that residential parking permit programs require a separate neighborhood-initiated process. Following discussion, Board Member Rosenberg recommended leaving parking off the list of proposed conditions, and Ms. Raybould recommended that the Board first identify the conditions proposed by the maker of the motion, obtain a second to the motion, and then discuss any friendly or non-friendly amendments. Chair Chen seconded the motion with a proposed friendly amendment requesting increased setbacks of approximately 30 feet from adjacent residential buildings, citing objective standards and potential benefits related to off-street parking and move-in access. Board Member Rosenberg cautioned that such a condition could exceed the Board’s authority under the Builder’s Remedy, noting that required design changes could impact unit count or courtyard configuration and may not be feasible. Mr. Switzer clarified the location of the referenced setback. Chair Chen further addressed massing, parking functionality, and potential transformer noise. Board Member Rosenberg initially declined to accept the proposed friendly amendment, stating a preference to avoid recommending conditions beyond what the applicant is required or likely able to implement. During discussion of the motion, Board Member Rosenberg asked whether Chair Chen wished to maintain her second following earlier debate on potential conditions. Chair Chen acknowledged ongoing concerns regarding building massing but recognized the limitations imposed by the project’s Builder’s Remedy status. Board Member Jojarth suggested adding a recommendation addressing the building’s perceived mass, distinguishing between reducing unit count and making architectural adjustments to lessen visual bulk. After confirming with staff that the Board may include such recommendations, Board Member Rosenberg agreed to add a friendly amendment requesting further exploration of architectural strategies to reduce the appearance of massing. Additional friendly amendments were discussed, including a request for building sections illustrating courtyard conditions, spa placement, and planting, and a recommendation to explore additional upper-level setbacks along El Camino Real to improve compatibility with adjacent development. While acknowledging feasibility concerns, Board Member Rosenberg agreed to include these items as recommendations for Council consideration and confirmed that both her motion and Chair Chen’s second remained in place. MOTION: Board Member Rosenberg moved, seconded by Chair Chen, to recommend that City Council approve the project based on the findings set forth in Attachment B with the following conditions of approval: • Add third elevator to the northeast wing of the structure. • Clear path of travel within bike room with the addition of a door to the parking garage. • Add an off-street loading space. Page 15 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/15/26 • Improve the parking garage screening to neighbors. • Recess the entrance along El Camino Real to ensure an 8-foot clearance when doors are open. • Expand 3rd-floor balconies, where possible. • Streamline balconies along El Camino Real with different materials to reduce transparency. • Reduce the visual massing of the structure through architectural expertise with refined facade detailing, and upper story stepbacks, potentially moving the top floor back by 4 feet. • Provide detailed courtyard sections explaining the spa and plantings. VOTE: Motion carried 3-0. Vice Chair Adcock and Board Member Hirsch absent. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.