Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-05 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: March 5, 2026 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Marton Jojarth, Board Member Kendra Rosenberg Absent: None Chair Chen called the meeting to order. Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared a quorum. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that the item regarding 450 Lytton Avenue had been removed from the agenda and would not be heard at the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer welcomed the ARB back and announced upcoming items, including the San Antonio Road Area Plan Study Session scheduled for March 19 and a joint meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on March 11 regarding the Cubberley Master Plan. Mr. Switzer presented the 2026 meeting schedule and requested Board members to notify staff of any planned absences. Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Board Member Rosenberg each reported they would be absent on June 18. Mr. Switzer noted that the June 18 meeting will be canceled due to a lack of quorum and asked that any additional scheduling conflicts be communicated to staff. STUDY SESSION 2. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4103 Old Trace Road [25PLN-00296]: Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Construct 16 Dwelling Units on Eight Total Lots, Including Eight Single- Family Residences and Eight Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. One Single Family Home and JADU would be Provided at Below Market Rate. A Separate Vesting Tentative Map Application (25PLN- 00298) Has Been Filed for the Proposed Subdivision. The Project Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. A Compliant Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application Was Page 2 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Filed on October 1, 2025. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66). Zone District: RE (Residential Estate). Associate Planner Nishita Kandikuppa presented the Streamlined Housing Development Review application for 4103 Old Trace Road and provided an overview of the site location, project scope, and relevant state law considerations. The vacant site, located at the corner of Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road within the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, is zoned Residential Estate (RE) and surrounded primarily by low-density residential uses, with the Research Park and nearby public schools to the north and west. Ms. Kandikuppa summarized the project timeline, noting the SB 330 application submitted in September 2025, subsequent Streamlined Housing Development and Vesting Tentative Map applications, and a January 2026 resubmittal requesting AB 130 CEQA exemption consideration. The item is before the ARB as a study session, with the Vesting Tentative Map anticipated to go to Council in May, while the Streamlined Housing Development Review will be processed at the staff level. Ms. Kandikuppa described the proposed subdivision of the vacant 1.02-acre site into 8 residential lots and 1 private street. Six lots would contain detached single-family homes with junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) and 2 lots would contain attached single-family homes with JADUs. One single-family home and JADU on Lot 5a would be deed-restricted for households earning no more than 100 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), satisfying the requirement for 15 percent of the 8 primary units to be below- market rate (BMR). Including the JADUs, the project proposes a total of 16 units. Lot 5a contains the smallest unit and lot area, while the largest lot is Lot 3 and the largest residence is proposed on Lot 2. Two-car garages are proposed for all lots except Lots 5a and 5b, which would have 1-car garages. Ms. Kandikuppa stated the applicant is requesting State Density Bonus waivers, including setbacks, daylight plane requirements, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and parking location. Ms. Kandikuppa reviewed the site plan, noting that the proposed private road would be accessed from Old Trace Road and Arastradero Road and would provide access to all lots. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would contain 3 habitable floors, including a basement, first floor, and second floor. Each lot includes a JADU in the basement with a separate exterior entrance as required by State law. Lots 1, 2, and 3 include 2-car subterranean garages, for which the applicant is requesting a waiver from the parking regulations in the code. Lots 4, 6, and 7 would contain 2 habitable floors with JADUs on the first floor and code-compliant 2-car garages. Lots 5a and 5b are proposed as attached single-family homes with JADUs and 1-car garages on the first floor. Uncovered parking is not currently shown for these lots and staff is working with the applicant to evaluate the feasibility of adding driveway parking. Ms. Kandikuppa presented streetscape views from Old Trace Road and Arastradero Road and noted that the development proposes 3 architectural styles: modern, Spanish modern, and contemporary. Material samples were provided for ARB review. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that ARB review is limited by applicable State laws. The project is processed as a Streamlined Housing Development under the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law and may not be denied based on inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. State Density Bonus provisions allow the applicant to request waivers as needed to achieve the proposed project scope and density, as well as 1 concession with justification related to cost reduction. AB 130 establishes strict review timelines and may exempt qualifying infill projects from further environmental review. Staff is currently evaluating eligibility under AB 130 and conducting tribal consultation with the Tamien Nation, which is expected to conclude in April 2026. Staff requested that the ARB conduct a study session and provide feedback on the project’s compliance with ARB and City objective standards under the Streamlined Housing Review. Page 3 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Board Member Rosenberg asked for clarification regarding SB 330, noting that the application appeared recent, and asked how the law applies and what limitations it establishes. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer explained that SB 330 freezes certain zoning standards at the time of application. It was explained that SB 330 differs from the Builder’s Remedy, which applied during the period when the City lacked a certified Housing Element. This project is using SB 330 to lock in development standards while pursuing State Density Bonus waivers and concessions, which provide similar relief under a different State housing mechanism. Board Member Rosenberg requested an explanation of the difference between State Density Bonus waivers and concessions. Mr. Switzer explained that waivers may be granted when a development standard would preclude the project from achieving the proposed density, while concessions are tied to financial considerations and require justification demonstrating cost impacts. The number of concessions permitted depends on the project’s density and the current project is eligible for 1 concession. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether the project’s proposed density is determined by the applicant and whether a higher-intensity development, such as an 8-story apartment building, could have been proposed on the site. Mr. Switzer explained that project density is influenced by market considerations, site characteristics, and zoning standards, noting that an 8-story building would likely not be consistent with the zoning applicable to the site. Board Member Rosenberg questioned whether the proposed multi-unit configuration allows the applicant to request development standard waivers such as increased height or reduced setbacks. Mr. Switzer confirmed that the applicant may request such waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. Board Member Rosenberg inquired about the City’s ability to deny waiver requests. Deputy City Attorney Madeleine Salah explained that the City may deny a waiver only if granting it would violate state or federal law or would result in an unmitigable health and safety impact. Board Member Rosenberg thanked staff and noted the importance of clarifying these points for members of the public in attendance. Board Member Hirsch asked whether the sidewalk shown on the plans is required for the project. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that the sidewalk proposed along Arastradero Road is not required but was added in response to staff comments to improve pedestrian circulation and connect to the existing bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the north side of Arastradero Road. Ms. Kandikuppa added that staff is discussing the possibility of sidewalks along Old Trace Road with the applicant, noting that no sidewalks currently exist along that street and that a new sidewalk would not connect to an existing network. Board Member Hirsch questioned how the City determines AMI levels. Mr. Switzer explained that AMI figures are established annually by the State based on data for Santa Clara County and are adjusted periodically for factors such as inflation. Board Member Hirsch stated that countywide AMI levels are lower than those specific to Palo Alto. Mr. Switzer confirmed that the AMI used for affordability calculations is based on countywide data rather than city-specific figures. Vice Chair Adcock asked how the proposed BMR unit complies with State Density Bonus requirements, noting that the affordable unit is the smallest unit rather than an average-sized unit. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer explained that local regulations require affordable units to be distributed and comparable to market-rate units but such local requirements may be subject to waiver under State Density Bonus provisions. Ms. Kandikuppa added that the applicant has requested a concession related to that requirement and noted that consultation with the City Attorney’s Office indicated that the City’s ability to deny concessions is limited under guidance from the California Department of Housing and Page 4 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Community Development. Ms. Salah stated that she would follow up with additional information after confirming the prior discussions with HCD. Development Member Melanie Griswold of Steel Bridge Homes Palo Alto, LP, introduced the proposed residential subdivision known as The Oaks at 4103 Old Trace Road. The project is designed to preserve existing landscape features, including mature trees, and the subdivision layout was adjusted to minimize tree removal. The proposal includes 8 single-family homes and 8 JADUs (16 total units), with 1 BMR unit, and was partially shaped by CEQA exemption thresholds requiring a minimum number of units. The project is intended to maintain a small-lot single-family character while incorporating multigenerational living features such as JADUs and first-floor en suite bedrooms. Additional project elements include a narrower private street (to be called Rose Drive) to increase landscaping opportunities, proposed public art along the Arastradero frontage by local artist Stephen Galloway, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements along Arastradero Road. It was noted that the development team conducted community outreach with nearby residents and attempted to incorporate feedback where feasible. Architect Taylor Carpenter of Ponderosa Architecture described the design approach for the project, emphasizing variety and individual character while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and natural environment. The proposal includes 3 architectural styles: Spanish modern, contemporary, and modern, with unique floor plans for each home. Ms. Carpenter presented 3D views from Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road and reviewed the site plan and streetscape perspectives. Lots 1, 2, and 3 include basements due to grade changes. Architectural layering and articulation are used to soften the perceived building height. Exterior materials include 3 stone selections, 3 stucco finishes, and wood grain siding, arranged in a natural color palette with contrasting elements. Ms. Griswold discussed the design approach for the garages on Lots 1, 2, and 3, noting that the site’s grade made front-facing garages visually challenging. The design places garages partially below grade along a sloped driveway rather than fully subterranean. The approach allows the garages to be set back from the street and provides space for front porches, landscaping, and driveway parking, reducing the appearance of garage-dominated facades. Ms. Griswold noted that the grade conditions created an opportunity to incorporate this design solution while avoiding 3-story homes. [The Board took a 5-minute break] Ms. Salah clarified Vice Chair Adcock’s earlier question regarding the BMR unit size, explaining that the requirement for the unit to reflect the average size of the development is a local standard. Ms. Salah stated that the applicant has requested a concession from that requirement and is entitled to 1 concession and added that the City has limited discretion to deny the request. PUBLIC COMMENTS Shailesh M., speaking on behalf of Diane M., Dom T., Lung W., Pat W., and Sania M. of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, expressed concerns about limited communication and notice to residents regarding the proposed project. The point was raised that the neighborhood’s single ingress and egress point at Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road, which serves 3 cul-de-sacs, could experience increased congestion and safety risks with the addition of new homes, potentially affecting emergency access and wildfire evacuation. Existing safety risks at the intersection were noted and a request was made for City representatives to visit the neighborhood to better understand site conditions and potential impacts. Page 5 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Herb B. commented on affordable housing standards and funding calculations. Recent changes were noted in some programs where affordability funding levels are determined by ZIP code rather than countywide averages. Awareness was encouraged regarding how these standards may affect project economics and affordability requirements. Marilyn S., a resident of 880 Mockingbird Lane for 52 years, raised concerns about traffic congestion and safety at the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection. Traffic backups during peak hours were described as making it difficult for residents to enter or exit the neighborhood. Additional challenges were noted regarding vehicle speeds, bicycle traffic, pedestrian safety, and potential parking demand associated with the proposed JADUs. Kanwar D., who lives at 4110 Old Trace Road, noted issues with traffic and safety conditions near the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection. Difficulties were described for children walking or biking to school due to traffic volume and vehicle speeds when crossing Arastradero Road. Concerns were raised that additional vehicles associated with the proposed development could worsen traffic congestion and complicate emergency access in the neighborhood. Ellen S., living at 910 Mockingbird Lane, expressed reservations about traffic safety at the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection. Ongoing concerns were raised about vehicle speeds, pedestrian safety, and the lack of flashing pedestrian lights at the crosswalk despite prior requests and traffic studies. A near collision involving a young pedestrian was discussed. Additional unease was expressed that increased vehicles associated with the proposed development could worsen congestion and on- street parking on the neighborhood’s narrow streets. Diane L., a resident of Old Trace Court, noted challenges with traffic, safety, and emergency access associated with the proposed development. Circulation impacts in the cul-de-sac were described due to construction truck activity, raising concerns about maneuverability for emergency and service vehicles. Additional concern was expressed that increased density and delivery traffic could worsen congestion and safety conditions at the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection and potential measures such as traffic calming, pedestrian improvements, limiting parking to one side of the street, or reducing the number of homes in the proposed development were suggested. Jasmine D., who lives at 4110 Old Trace Road, raised issues about traffic safety near the neighborhood ingress point. It was noted that increased traffic associated with the proposed development could create safety risks for elderly residents with mobility limitations and for children walking to school due to speeding and distracted drivers. The importance of maintaining safe walking conditions for seniors and neighborhood children was emphasized. Jeannie C., living at 4146 Old Trace Road, expressed concerns about traffic safety, parking, and emergency access associated with the proposed development. Potential impacts were raised that additional residents and vehicles could increase congestion at the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection, which serves as an emergency evacuation route and access point for Esther Clark Park. It was noted that limited parking and the narrow width of Old Trace Road could lead to on-street parking that may impede emergency vehicle access. Shoshanna L., who lives at 940 Old Trace Court, commented on issues related to traffic, parking, neighborhood character, and emergency access. Safety challenges were described for residents with Page 6 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 mobility limitations due to existing on-street parking and construction activity, with concern that additional vehicles associated with the proposed development could worsen congestion and access for emergency services and VTA. Potential impacts to the rural character of the neighborhood, proximity to Esther Clark Park, and increased activity from visitors and delivery traffic were noted. Adrian R., a resident of 4155 Old Trace Court, expressed concerns related to traffic safety, emergency access, and potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Difficult traffic conditions and limited visibility at the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection were described, with concern that additional vehicles could worsen safety risks for pedestrians and drivers. Questions were raised regarding traffic studies, emergency vehicle access and turning radius, and potential impacts related to nearby water and geological conditions. Chair Chen invited the applicant to provide a rebuttal to public comments. Ms. Griswold responded to issues raised during public comment regarding traffic and safety. Traffic studies conducted for the project were referenced, indicating that the development is expected to generate minimal additional vehicle trips during peak hours. Willingness was expressed to incorporate recommended safety improvements and coordinate with the City’s Transportation Department on potential signal, striping, and parking measures to address neighborhood safety concerns. Board Member Hirsch asked whether the subdivision’s private street could function as a one-way entry/exit to reduce traffic conflicts on Old Trace Road. Ms. Griswold explained that the existing median on Arastradero Road limits turning movements and requires 2-way circulation within the subdivision to maintain access. Mr. Switzer directed the Board to the staff report (Packet Page 16) under Multi-Modal Access for additional explanation of the proposed circulation design. Board Member Rosenberg asked about the proposed width of the development's private road, turning radius, and site circulation. Ms. Griswold stated that Rose Drive would be 20 feet wide with turning radius designed to City standards and confirmed that vehicle access would primarily occur via Arastradero Road, while circulation toward Interstate 280 would require travel along Old Trace Road. The potential for a sidewalk along Old Trace Road was addressed, noting that installation could conflict with preservation of a heritage tree. Board Member Hirsch raised questions regarding traffic impacts and the level of review by the City’s Transportation Department. Ms. Griswold stated that the applicant engaged a traffic consultant and that traffic data and City comments would guide any safety improvements. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that the Transportation Department reviewed the circulation design and emergency vehicle access, noting that the proposed through-access supports trash service and on-site maneuverability for emergency vehicles. Ms. Armer stated that the Office of Transportation has been alerted to the traffic safety issues raised during public comment. Previous discussions regarding potential roadway improvements in the area were noted and the concerns shared will be considered as part of broader evaluation of existing traffic conditions that extend beyond the scope of the proposed project. Board Member Hirsch suggested exploring potential modifications to the Arastradero Road median to allow additional turning movements as a way to reduce traffic impacts on Old Trace Road. Ms. Armer stated that the recommendation could be reviewed further for feasibility and noted that staff will continue evaluating circulation and safety issues with the applicant. Board Member Hirsch recommended involving neighborhood representatives in future discussions regarding traffic and safety considerations. Page 7 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Vice Chair Adcock asked Board Member Hirsch to clarify whether his suggestion involved allowing left turns from Rose Drive onto Arastradero Road; Board Member Hirsch confirmed that was the intent. Board Member Rosenberg asked about the relationship between the proposed unit count and the project’s CEQA exemption. Ms. Griswold confirmed that the project includes 16 units, which includes the JADUs, in order to meet the threshold for the exemption. Board Member Rosenberg questioned whether a reduced number of units had been considered. Ms. Griswold indicated that reducing the unit count would likely not be pursued at this stage due to the importance of maintaining the CEQA exemption. Board Member Rosenberg inquired about the design rationale for placing the modern-style homes at the corner locations, noting that those units appear bulkier and less articulated than the other styles. Ms. Griswold explained that the modern and Spanish-style homes have flatter roof forms, which allows those units to maintain lower overall heights relative to the site’s natural grade compared to steeper roof designs. Board Member Rosenberg questioned the height and design of the parapet walls on the modern-style homes and whether the roofs were intended to be accessible. Ms. Griswold confirmed that roof access was not proposed and noted that the parapet height may have been intended to accommodate rooftop equipment but appeared taller than necessary. Board Member Rosenberg suggested revisiting the parapet design to reduce height and soften the appearance of the corner units to better align with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Carpenter stated that the parapet height could be lowered. Board Member Rosenberg commented on the orientation of the proposed subdivision sign along Arastradero Road, noting that it appeared to face away from the primary direction of approaching traffic. Reconsideration of the sign placement was suggested to improve visibility for vehicles entering from the Interstate 280 direction. Board Member Rosenberg addressed the proposed sidewalk along Arastradero Road and the relationship to the nearby heritage tree. Support was expressed for the sidewalk as a safety improvement despite its limited connection to other sidewalks and consideration was suggested for whether removal of the heritage tree could be evaluated if needed to accommodate pedestrian improvements. Ms. Kandikuppa stated that any decision regarding the heritage tree would require review by the Urban Forestry Department. Board Member Rosenberg asked whether the applicant would support additional traffic safety measures at the Arastradero Road and Old Trace Road intersection, noting ongoing neighborhood concerns. Ms. Kandikuppa stated that Transportation staff had recommended installation of a rapid flashing beacon at the existing crosswalk and noted that broader improvements such as additional sidewalks would require larger infrastructure coordination. Board Member Rosenberg emphasized that continued discussion among the City, applicant, and neighbors may be needed to evaluate whether further measures such as stop signs or signals should be considered. Board Member Rosenberg had questions about trash collection and staging for the proposed development. Ms. Griswold stated that trash would be handled as typical single-family service, with bins stored in garages and wheeled to the street by residents on collection days. It was confirmed that trash cans would be placed along the 20-foot-wide private street for pickup. Page 8 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Board Member Rosenberg requested clarification about drainage and flood prevention for the proposed partially subterranean garages, noting potential risks associated with driveway slopes and stormwater. Ms. Griswold stated that drainage and water management would be addressed through engineering design, including measures to prevent water intrusion during construction and throughout the life of the garages. Board Member Rosenberg emphasized the importance of ensuring that stormwater is properly diverted and does not affect neighboring properties. Vice Chair Adcock questioned the size and design of the BMR unit and the proposed JADUs, noting that the BMR unit is smaller than the market-rate homes and that the below-grade JADU layouts appear constrained and less functional. Ms. Griswold stated that the size of the BMR unit is driven by project economics and that JADUs are designed to meet state requirements within site constraints, primarily as compact living spaces with basic facilities. Staff clarified that JADUs are regulated by state law with size limits and are not subject to ARB design review. Vice Chair Adcock reiterated her concerns about the livability of certain basement JADU configurations. Ms. Griswold invited specific feedback on potential improvements to the basement JADU designs. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the slope of the driveways and whether additional parking on the sloped driveways would be feasible. Ms. Griswold stated that the driveway slopes are within code requirements and are estimated to be under 5 percent. Clarification was provided that the semi-subterranean driveways apply to Lots 1, 2, and 3. Board Member Hirsch asked about guest parking and whether adequate space is available for visitors. Ms. Griswold stated that guest parking would occur on private driveways and along Old Trace Road, noting that no parking is provided within the 20-foot-wide private street. Ms. Kandikuppa clarified that Old Trace Road is approximately 30 feet curb-to-curb with no sidewalk and Board Member Hirsch expressed concern that available parking may be insufficient for larger gatherings. Chair Chen asked about the length of the driveways for Lots 1, 2, and 3 and whether they are driven by slope and basement access requirements. Ms. Griswold explained that the longer driveways result from site constraints, including lot shape and tree preservation, with garage placement toward the rear helping to reduce driveway slope and accommodate parking. Chair Chen asked whether shorter driveways could allow adjustments to building placement to increase backyard space and separation from neighboring properties. Ms. Griswold stated that current site constraints, including setbacks, stormwater treatment, and design considerations, limit flexibility but indicated willingness to revisit the layout and explore potential opportunities for guest parking. Civil Engineer Brian Ballerini of Steel Bridge Homes Palo Alto, LP, explained that driveway drainage would be managed through gravity flow to the storm system with pump backup and stated that driveway slopes of Lots 1, 2 and 3 range from approximately 2 to 7 percent, consistent with code requirements. It was noted that Old Trace Road, at approximately 40 feet wide, can accommodate travel lanes and on-street parking, though on-site guest parking would primarily be provided in driveways. Mr. Ballerini commented on the feasibility of adding a sidewalk along Old Trace Road. It was noted that while a sidewalk could be accommodated within the 40-foot right-of-way, limited width and lack of connectivity present design challenges, including the absence of space for typical planter separation. Page 9 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Chair Chen reiterated that the public comment period had closed and directed any additional comments to be submitted to City staff via email. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the potential to incorporate sidewalks along Old Trace Road and the relationship to parking and pedestrian safety. Ms. Griswold stated that sidewalk installation is being discussed with the City and could be explored further, though connectivity and site constraints, including the heritage tree, present challenges. Alternative approaches such as informal gravel paths were mentioned. Ms. Kandikuppa noted that accommodating parking and sidewalks would require meeting minimum street width standards, which may necessitate additional frontage considerations. Chair Chen asked about potential privacy impacts for adjacent neighbors behind Lots 1 and 2 and whether additional screening would be provided. Ms. Griswold stated that additional landscaping, including trees, could be considered to enhance privacy and that the design team would coordinate with the landscape architect to evaluate options. Chair Chen asked about window placement and privacy for Lot 1, noting that several floor-to-ceiling windows face adjacent neighbors. Consideration was suggested for raising sill heights for bathrooms and walk-in closets to improve privacy and Ms. Griswold confirmed that adjustments could be made. Chair Chen asked about minimum lot size requirements for single-family development across zoning districts. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that minimum lot sizes vary by zoning district, noting that the RE district requires 1-acre lots while other districts, such as R1, have smaller minimums. It was clarified that the proposed smaller lot sizes are permitted through a State Density Bonus waiver. Board Member Jojarth commented on the proposed floor-to-ceiling heights, noting that taller ceiling heights contribute to overall building height, and suggested that reducing them could improve compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Griswold stated that ceiling heights could be evaluated for potential reduction while maintaining market expectations. Attorney Salah clarified that state law limits the City’s ability to require design changes that could reduce amenities, even if overall density remains unchanged. Board Member Jojarth asked about the proposed "The Oaks" signage at the site corners. Ms. Griswold stated that the signage is under review due to potential conflicts with visibility requirements and may be relocated or integrated into fencing or public art elements. Board Member Jojarth questioned the placement of outdoor HVAC units and potential noise impacts on adjacent properties. Ms. Griswold explained that units would be located outdoors and comply with applicable noise regulations. Ms. Kandikuppa added that the locations shown are preliminary and will be reviewed at the building permit stage for compliance with noise standards and setback requirements. Board Member Jojarth inquired about privacy standards related to window placement, including the use of obscured glazing. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that privacy guidelines typically require minimum sill heights or obscured glazing but indicated that the applicant may request waivers under State Density Bonus provisions. It was noted that privacy considerations remain within the ARB’s purview to comment on, including potential adjustments to window placement or glazing treatments. Vice Chair Adcock asked whether privacy standards for obscured windows differ within a subdivision context. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that subdivision projects are not subject to IR guidelines in the same Page 10 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 way but stressed that privacy considerations remain important and would still be evaluated as part of the project. Board Member Jojarth sought clarification about the proposed fencing along Arastradero Road and the side street. Ms. Griswold stated that the fence design is still under review and may be reduced in height. Ms. Kandikuppa explained that fencing within required setbacks and visibility areas is subject to height limits, including 4 feet along street frontages and 3 feet within the intersection view triangle. Board Member Rosenberg wanted clarification on the nature of this meeting item and it was confirmed that this is a study session and no vote would occur. Board Member Jojarth raised significant safety issues based on public comments, questioning the reliability of traffic and safety analyses in light of community input. Concerns were emphasized regarding emergency access, on-street parking, and increased traffic. Consideration was suggested for measures such as parking management and sidewalk improvements to address changing neighborhood conditions. It was stated that resolving these safety issues is critical to the feasibility of the project. Board Member Jojarth discussed issues related to privacy, building height, and neighborhood integration. Additional landscaping and window treatments were suggested to improve privacy and concerns were expressed that the partially subterranean design contributes to increased building height and mass. Feedback was provided regarding signage and fencing, suggesting that the project should better integrate with the existing Esther Clark Park neighborhood rather than appear as a separate development. Board Member Hirsch underscored concerns regarding traffic, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood compatibility, particularly at the Old Trace Road access point. Support was reiterated for exploring alternatives such as one-way circulation and broader coordination with the City to address congestion and access issues. Issues were raised regarding the overall density, scale, and design approach of the project, noting that the number and size of homes may be incompatible with the surrounding single- family neighborhood and that a less dense development with simpler architectural expression and more open space could be more appropriate. Board Member Rosenberg acknowledged neighborhood concerns and commented on the constraints of state housing laws influencing the project’s density and design. It was noted that while the project may not align with the existing neighborhood character, the focus should be on improving safety and functionality, including potential measures such as intersection controls, sidewalk installation, traffic calming, and parking management. Board Member Rosenberg addressed additional concerns with site design, including building scale, architectural consistency, basement and JADU layouts, and drainage considerations, with suggestions to refine these elements to better integrate with the neighborhood and improve livability. Vice Chair Adcock thanked the applicant and neighbors and emphasized the importance of inclusivity in the project design. Her comments focused on concerns that the subdivision could function as an isolated enclave rather than integrating with the surrounding Esther Clark Park neighborhood, with attention to connectivity, pedestrian improvements, and community cohesion. Additional remarks addressed equity within the development, including the visibility and size of the BMR unit and JADUs, encouraging more inclusive design solutions that avoid creating distinctions among residents and provide more livable, functional spaces. Page 11 of 11 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/5/26 Chair Chen thanked the applicant and community members and encouraged continued coordination with the Transportation Department and neighbors to address safety and circulation issues. Suggestions included exploring on-site guest parking options, potentially by adjusting landscape areas and planters, and minimizing reliance on street parking along Old Trace Road. Additional comments addressed building design and site planning, including reducing floor-to-floor heights, improving privacy through landscaping and window treatments, and evaluating adjustments to unit and lot sizes to better balance livability and neighborhood compatibility. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 4, 2025 Chair Chen asked other board members whether there were any modifications to the minutes. No modifications were noted. MOTION: Board Member Rosenberg moved, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock, to approve the meeting minutes of December 4, 2025, as written. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0-0. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 15, 2026 MOTION: Board Member Rosenberg moved, seconded by Chair Chen, to approve the meeting minutes of January 15, 2026, as written. VOTE: Motion carried 3-0-2. Vice Chair Adcock and Board Member Hirsch abstained as they were absent from the January 15, 2026, meeting. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Chair Chen reported that the ARB work plan was approved by the City Council on February 2, 2026, including the addition of SB 79 as a project and expansion of objective standards to townhomes. Council support was noted for coordination between the ARB, HRB, and PTC, and the upcoming joint meeting was acknowledged. Board Member Rosenberg inquired about attendance requirements for the joint meeting. Mr. Switzer stated that remote participation would need to be requested in advance and could be accommodated with justification. ADJOURNMENT Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 11:27 a.m.