Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-19 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Minutes: Thursday, March 19, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Marton Jojarth, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg Absent: None. Chair Chen called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared a quorum. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes planned for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a slide presentation including updates of the March 16 Council meeting, upcoming items, and 2026 meeting schedules. STUDY SESSION 2. San Antonio Road Area Plan Land Use and Transportation Alternatives Study Session. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. Robert Cain, Principal Planner, provided a slide presentation including an agenda, San Antonio Road area plan goals, project timeline, overall design strategy, land use alternatives, sub area alternatives, plan area development analysis, North Fabian sub area, Maxar Site alternatives, CTI sub area, outdoor space strategies and alternatives, CTI land use alternatives, mobility alternatives, mobility strategies to support land use alternatives, San Antonio Road priorities, Charleston Road to Middlefield Road alternatives, San Antonio Intersection improvements, and requested feedback. Vice Chair Adcock queried if there are any areas that were being considered to emulate University Avenue or Cal Ave. Mr. Cain replied San Antonio Road is not expected to become like Cal Ave or University Avenue. It is still the City's only truck route between 101 and Alma. Within some of the areas, there could be some development similar to what is seen near San Antonio Station on the Mountain Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 View side. Chris Sensenig, Principal at Raimi + Associates, stated different aspects of the project relate similar to this area. The area north of California Street toward Caltrain is a good example of what can be expected as one of the open spaces in the CTI area and potentially a smaller open space in the Maxar site. It is about a half-acre park. There is a road leading off California Street north to the park that is a little wider. It has a plaza and residential amenity space. That project is five to six stories. That represents the lower density. Closer to El Camino Real, more seven to eight story buildings are seen. That is the scale that can be expected along San Antonio and the South Fabian and CTI areas. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, added the vision was to create new neighborhood and improve mobility options particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists in this area. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if there is an overlap school district-wise. Mr. Cain responded the school district boundary was created before this area was annexed into either Palo Alto or Mountain View. The City boundary does not match the school district boundary. A majority of the children will be going to Palo Alto schools. Changing that would require a vote of anyone who would be affected by the change of district and approval by the county board. The City can support but does not have a role in the change. For now, the children will continue to attend both school districts. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if Palo Alto's building can directly impact Mountain View school districts. Mr. Cain stated the answer to be yes because the ability to issue building permits lies with the City and not the school district. Boardmember Rosenberg asked how unique this situation is to Palo Alto. Assistant Director Armer said it is very common for a lot of agencies because the school district boundaries are set up independent from the City. Often the school district name is associated with the agency that most of it is in but the lines rarely line up directly with the city boundary lines. Chair Chen inquired if there is a housing element goal that is being worked toward. Mr. Cain answered it will depend on individual developers. The City does not own the parcels. The City owns the streets, sidewalks, and rights of way. This plan is looking as a 20-year plan. The current housing element cycle is only through 2031. They would like to see more potential than just what is in the current housing element cycle. It is an open question about how much more beyond that should be planned for. The planners build capacity for this level of development unless there is an actual city-funded project. Chair Chen observed this would mean the housing elements would be at least the minimum unit number created in this area. Mr. Cain said the capacity for the current housing element cycle capacity has already been taken through rezoning that happened after the housing element was adopted. They are looking about how much additional capacity should be created in the plan area. Assistant Director Armer explained it is important to understand the difference between the capacity being provided in terms of the regulations and the projections for what has been justified as likely to redevelop and what will actually get built. The goal is to provide incentives to encourage housing for the City's housing goals. Chair Chen asked if the transportation department will also be involved. Assistant Director Armer said planners often focus on land uses, density, height, etc. For this plan, the mobility options are of equal importance. Mr. Cain added that close work is being done with the Office of Transportation colleagues and VTA in developing all facets of this plan. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if recommending something that has to have retail space is a complication. Mr. Cain replied there are some complications with ground floor retail. It works in places with a lot of foot traffic and places where there is a destination. Sites that do not have people walking up and down all day and do not have parking to support them are not as successful. Mr. Sensenig stated Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 there are areas in the plan where retail would be difficult to be successful. The focus is on how to create new neighborhoods and have that third place. The CTI area is felt to be a place that would be successful. Flexibility is the key. That is an area that is important to have a certain amount of neighborhood-serving retail to serve the mixed-use community. The other question is about if the Maxar site redevelops and if that type of area can have a small amount of neighborhood-serving retail. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the experience with adjacency. Mr. Sensenig stated on the new mixed-use projects, adjacency is a plus. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about getting office spaces in the mix. Mr. Sensenig responded there is a property owner in the CTI area that wants to build office and a mixed-use community. The expectation is to have an office building, parking structure, and residential buildings. It would be mixed throughout the area. The uses would be split horizontally with the exception of the retail which would be located on the ground floor of the residential buildings. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the owner in the CTI area is the major owner. Mr. Sensenig confirmed that stating they are also the same property owner of the Mountain View parcel. Boardmember Hirsch queried about the concept of parking in the Mountain View project. Mr. Sensenig answered the Mountain View project has a 170 foot tall, 11 story, 488,000 square foot office building and an adjacent parking structure. The parking structure has some of the commercial amenity. Two of the residential buildings have a below grade parking structure that spans between the two buildings that the main drive goes across. The third residential building has ground floor and below grade parking. They are all either five over two or five over three, seven or eight story buildings. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the whole project has been costed out. Mr. Sensenig was not fully familiar with the process but it is an application into the city of Mountain View. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the rest of the CTI breaks down with ownership. Mr. Sensenig stated the CTI area has a lot of small parcels with different owners. A certain percentage of them are consolidated. The contrast to the Mountain View project is that the CTI area is likely to develop piecemeal across time dependent on different property owners' motivation. There is great opportunity making the connections across the blocks connecting from the Mountain View project to the CTI neighborhood. There is a viable connection between Industrial Avenue and the Mountain View project. The building types are likely to be similar to the Mountain View project. Mr. Cain added there is an owner that owns many of the small lots in CTI and rents them out to a variety of uses. There is no overall plan as to who they rent out to currently. The Maxar site is on the other side. Boardmember Hirsch asked if Maxar would be the more likely site to be developed. Assistant Director Armer said one of the members of the community advisory group is the developer who has expressed an interest in developing in the CTI area. Mr. Cain added Alexandria, the owner of Maxar, is looking to see if anyone is interested in purchasing the property. Boardmember Hirsch queried if this has been discussed with the leaseholders. Mr. Cain stated nothing has been specifically discussed with Maxar. There were discussions with a representative for Alexandria until they decided to solicit offers. They do not want to discuss while that process is going on. If there is a new property owner, it will be up to them to discuss with Maxar the future of that company. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the parking is part of the Alexandria property. Mr. Sensenig said the site is about 24.5 acres. Some of that space might be leased out and not all employee parking. Boardmember Hirsch asked if a bike connection on Charleston has been included in the transportation planning. Mr. Cain replied the City recently upgraded much of Charleston Road looking to improve Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 Charleston within the plan area. There are discussions with Mountain View to create facilities for a seamless connection. Boardmember Hirsch wondered if the transportation planning considered the fact that it is a heavy truck and car route. Mr. Sensenig stated they are looking at how to improve each intersection. As part of the 101 Interchange, there is a proposed bike route that will connect from San Antonio to the bridge to Transport Avenue. They will look at a new connection through the Maxar site if it should develop from San Antonio to Fabian Way for pedestrians and bikes. Alternatives are being looked at to eliminate the diagonal parking at Charleston within the right of way. Grade separated connections have been explored. The space at Charleston and San Antonio is constrained and would require 10,000 feet to put in a roundabout ramp. The primary focus is improving at grade crossings. They are looking to explore whether to maintain double left turns at each intersection. Boardmember Jojarth was curious why Bayshore is being restricted to office only. Mr. Cain explained it is currently an office development. They are in the process of completing a supportive housing project in that area on San Antonio Road. There are challenges with environmental concerns and needs to mitigate air quality impacts from 101. It is also disconnected from services and shops more than other portions of the planned area. Boardmember Jojarth asked about differences in Geng Road. Mr. Cain stated an environmental analysis will have to be done to know the factors that might be an impact. If the direction is to consider building townhomes, that option can be explored. Mr. Sensenig said it is up to the City policy whether to encourage that. Mr. Cain observed 2100 Geng Road was a Builder's Remedy process. It was approved but there were limitations on what the City could do in that review and approval process. Mr. Switzer commented the City was limited in the requirements. The applicant was entitled through state law with some waivers and concessions for city standards. The question could be if the Architecture Review Board would like the City to consider different types of development. The market has indicated townhomes are a model. Continuing that for this area is something to consider. There is potential for higher density in some of the areas of the plan that townhomes will not be reaching. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted to know how much the heights have been considered regarding what is next to it. Mr. Cain stated those policies will be created in the next phase. There has been discussion about what kind of setbacks might be at North Fabian for the side that abuts Adobe Creek. If taller buildings are allowed on that side of Fabian, there might be large setbacks or requirement to step up away from the creek and street. There has been feedback that the tallest building should be along 101 in the planned area. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the next steps. Mr. Cain said the focus is at the high level. Mr. Sensenig added direct feedback would be taken on what should be pursued as the plan is developed. The goal is to get to the preferred plan. Feedback is being sought if the plan area should allow new office buildings or not and high level direction on the transportation and mobility aspects. Staff will be back providing an outline of where they are in policies, analysis, draft zoning, and the architectural concerns the development standards will address. Boardmember Hirsch commented there are some two-story buildings along the other side of Fabian that continue around the corner including the school building at that corner piece. It is a distance to any kind of residential into that interior. The height transition discussion is not relative to low-scale residential. Mr. Cain explained in addition to the Maxar site potentially developing in the future, there are some project applications in for the other sites along Fabian. There is no anticipation that this plan will be anything other than that project. The other two-story buildings might stay or redevelop. The question is whether they should be residential or office if they redevelop and what limits are wanted on height. Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 Boardmember Hirsch stated they get hamstrung by state regulations. Mr. Cain confirmed that in some cases. Builder's Remedy gives developers more flexibility. Other incentives give the ability to request waivers and reductions in standards in exchange for things like affordable housing. It is unknown what state legislature will do next to incentivize housing but they will continue to pass laws to make it easier for people to build housing. That has to be navigated through the plan. There are also incentives provided to developers if they go through a City process rather than state process. Assistant Director Armer added the City has seen success when they set out framework, guides, and clear indication of what the City is interested in seeing in terms of development. Many of the developers coming in with applications are taking that into consideration when they do the design. These kinds of guidance documents and plans have an effect in terms of future development being better aligned with what the City is looking for in the different areas. Chair Chen suggested to ensure no area is overlooked by going through each sub area in the order Staff presented and provide comment, feedback, and specific alternatives. Boardmember Jojarth asked how getting an easement from the property owners works. Mr. Cain stated if a site is redeveloping, they engage with the owner during that process as part of the application. They talk about whether dedication is feasible for their project and how it can be incorporated and work with them to get that done. If a site is already developed and not likely to redevelop, they will go to them as a City to make an offer for the space needed and enter a negotiation with them to acquire an easement through that piece of property. Boardmember Hirsch asked if Staff has tried to do a whole scheme of bike improvements in urban areas with multiple ownership before. Mr. Sensenig replied looking at the alternative to do the shared use path on the northwest side of San Antonio, they would need to look into the details of each property and what are the alternatives if extra space is not obtained outside of the right of way. In each case, the possibility of doing that shared use path within the right of way can be done but there are tradeoffs. Each parcel is unique and something the consultant team and City will need to look at in detail. There might be points where a less desirable solution is what is needed but the mobility improvement is still possible. Boardmember Rosenberg pointed out on 824 San Antonio it says the height is 2 stories and that is inaccurate. It is 4 stories and 808 and 800 are 7 stories, not 5. Mr. Sensenig stated the second application that came in for 800 and 808 is 8 stories. That will be updated. Boardmember Rosenberg commented everything on the east side of San Antonio should be taller and on the west side of San Antonio shorter and bike paths should be kept separate from cars. Vice Chair Adcock commented along Middlefield can be higher. In the projects reviewed along San Antonio, trash pickup deliveries was a big concern because each individual property is being developed individually but trash is pulled out to the front which is in conflict with the bike separation. That is a concern with this street development whether bike parking is shared with pedestrian or part of the parking. Each individual garbage pickup and delivery and DoorDash interrupting that is a problem. The team should consider the solution including deliveries and stops. Chair Chen agreed and added also with garage access. It is another cutaway from the bike lane. It is important to find how it works to keep it safe and continuous. Vice Chair Adcock said the success of many high-density neighborhoods is because there is a back delivery trash pickup area. Chair Chen stated another benefit from keeping an alleyway Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 or service road at the back is maximizing retail potentials along the street. The street frontage will be more pedestrian friendly instead of having trash staging or garage access along the road. Boardmember Hirsch opined retail would complicate things. Vice Chair Adcock agreed retail should be optional and suggested it would make sense to have a two-way bike lane favoring the north side. Boardmember Hirsch seconded the two-way bike lane. Boardmember Jojarth expressed a need to ensure the right amount of parking and wanted to know if there is a way to create the zoning code in such a way that will require retrial once a certain metric is reached. Boardmember Rosenberg wondered if there would be a way to incentivize it. Assistant Director Armer explained when looking at a project, the design of the building is being looked at. If retail is desired in the future, the building needs to be designed to accommodate that. There can be limits on the amount of square footage of different types of uses. There are limitations on the ability to require it to be occupied. There might be some ideas on incentivizing. Mr. Cain added some jurisdictions require that a building have retail-ready space but not actually have retail right away. It can be challenging because different kinds of retail have different requirements for their buildings. Mr. Sensenig stated there are things that will be explored regarding requiring retail. Boardmember Hirsch opined if retail is going to be added, it should be on a corner for parking access. Chair Chen thought this area would be a good example to underlay the pipeline projects where the garage and trash staging area is. Boardmember Rosenberg said the South Fabian sub area on packet page 43 was straightforward as there were not a lot of changes being made. The area in yellow on the slide should be 60-feet max and a park should be encouraged. Vice Chair Adcock thought it made more sense to create a more substantial neighborhood park in North Fabian. Boardmember Hirsch commented that park would be against the homes raised up with parking underneath. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to reinforce the bike routes plan as the Maxar site is developed. Mr. Cain commented that packet page 50 are concept designs. When the site redevelops in the future, it will be up to the property owner to come up with the design they want to propose. Boardmember Rosenberg thought getting retail along the park is a nice way to go. Having the big park is a good way to feed into the South Fabian area. Vice Chair Adcock asked if there is a possibility to do a hybrid zoning in the segment on packet page 52. Mr. Cain stated that could be required as a setback line. Up to that height, it is a certain height and beyond it is a different height. Vice Chair Adcock asked if they could say this site is required in the next development to have at least an acre and a half park as part of the zoning. Assistant Director Armer replied they could look into what methods they might be able to incorporate. Chair Chen asked how colleagues felt about adding office area. Boardmember Rosenberg agreed with adding office space. Chair Chen observed the taller buildings would be a good sun blocker for the residentials. Vice Chair Adcock thought it could be mixed-use. Mr. Switzer pointed out that Fabian Way is a truck route that connects to Oregon Expressway. Boardmember Jojarth advised not to over plan with different concepts for the developer and was in favor of a mix of office and residential. Vice Chair Adcock queried if minimum density can be required on a site. Mr. Cain stated Palo Alto does not very much but some jurisdictions require minimum density. The regional government has asked that be looked into around transit stations. Mr. Switzer stated there are state density requirements to meet a minimum density and have a framework between what a maximum could be with incentives of building out that density on the site. Mr. Sensenig stated there is a minimum density on the Maxar site of 40 dwelling units per acre. Boardmember Jojarth supported increasing the minimum and put in Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 minimum square foot per acre for non-residential. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted to ensure anything designated as a park was not included in the increased density. Mr. Cain added that when a site dedicates the city property, the acreage is reduced and is not counted toward density. If it becomes a city park, that issue is removed. If it is a privately owned, publicly accessible park, it might have to be stated they are not looking at that for density calculations. Chair Chen added there needs to be a balance instead of just pursuing high density. Boardmember Hirsch stated the next way these projects should be presented is 3D drawings. Vice Chair Adcock thought master planning the height of a property seemed beyond what the City should be doing. Assistant Director Armer stated they wanted to be careful about implying the full area will get redeveloped to the full capacity. They intend to have additional detail as the alternatives are narrowed down. There is a balance as between how much detail they can get into at each stage of the process. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the City could require at least two ways in and out of the Maxar site development because of the traffic density. Mr. Sensenig stated that is being studied. The Palo Alto Objective Design Standards requires small blocks. The city has certain regulations on how a large site needs to redevelop. These requirements will get more detailed further in the area plan. Mr. Switzer added any development of the site will be evaluated with a transportation analysis or impact analysis. Boardmember Rosenberg supported the connectivity between Palo Alto and Mountain View. Vice Chair Adcock asked if it is a possibility given the grade at San Antonio by 101. Mr. Cain said it will be difficult in the short term but in the future as VTA does the 101-San Antonio Interchange Project, they are looking to improve the bike/ped access across 101. The intent is to allow people to go across where they are not crossing San Antonio or the on-ramps and get from one side to the other. The other option would be to build another footbridge and there is not real estate for that to work so is less likely to advance. They are exploring ways to make the at-grade crossing safer and more comfortable. Chair Chen invited feedback about open space along Charleston or toward the inner of the CTI. Vice Chair Adcock was inclined to go with a larger park with potential that can connect to the other side of Mountain View. Boardmember Rosenberg asked what the center area is. Mr. Cain stated it is a plaza. Chair Chen asked for feedback on the land alternatives on packet page 68. Boardmember Rosenberg thought going higher was fine especially along 101. More mixed use would be revitalizing. Vice Chair Adcock pointed out this area could have residential, office, and retail. Boardmember Jojarth commented this is a good area for high rise and density. There has to be an entrepreneur have a vision, talk to the different owners, and maybe buy them out or organize it as a developer. That will require incentives and too many constraints on the zoning will have an impact on that. The feedback was to go for alternative four. Transportation improvements will come if there is a big enough project. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to consider that the highest is 11-story and 8-story for residential and to think about what the next neighborhood development might be. Mr. Cain said this is what has been proposed and submitted, not yet approved by the City of Mountain View. Boardmember Rosenberg commented concessions should be made for a connector at that point. Chair Chen asked if seven or eight stories is appropriate for the CTI area or if high rise is appropriate. Boardmember Rosenberg observed Palo Alto is not a high rise city and 90 feet seemed appropriate. Vice Chair Adcock thought the 11-story office in the next door Mountain View neighborhood is in the 135 height limit range. Mr. Sensenig stated it is 170 feet. Vice Chair Adcock stated in that context if the project moves forward it would make sense to allow up to that Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 height. Mr. Switzer pointed out certain height limits changes the construction technique. Having a height limitation may preclude certain types of construction. Vice Chair Adcock recommended alternative four and asked about the metrics the City would put out as the development guidelines for this area because of multiple ownership. Mr. Cain responded it could state in order to have office it has to be on a lot of a certain size and otherwise have to have residential and ground floor only. If done correctly, it will encourage people to consolidate their lots to have more options to develop. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if there is a way to streamline that process. Assistant Director Armer replied the lot merger process is not complex. Boardmember Hirsch asked how to deal with the connectivity if it is going to be open space. Assistant Director Armer stated they will look into implementing methods on the feedback received about what kinds of connections are important. Mr. Cain commented if someone has a 5000-square-foot lot and want to redevelop it, it is not realistic to put a lot of burden on them to create outdoor space or connections through that one particular lot. If someone is doing a project of a larger size, they might add the threshold that projects over a certain size have to include connectivity across these blocks or have a certain amount of park space either dedicated or a publicly accessible, privately owned space. Those things can be worked through at the policy portion. Chair Chen asked for comments on Alma and East and West Bay Shore. Boardmember Jojarth thought it would be nice to see the possibility of residential development on the other side of the freeway shown on packet page 78. It would not be good for someone to create hundreds of townhomes that all look alike. More diversity like apartments including some rental and ownership. Boardmember Hirsch was in agreement. Vice Chair Adcock worried about residents living on a small island with connectivity only crossing the highway and about losing commercial real estate and was inclined to allow higher density of commercial in this area because it is part of a vehicular only connected part of town. Boardmember Rosenberg was inclined to say this would be an island of residences and they would not want to isolate those people. The West Bay Shore slide is a great spot for more development. Chair Chen invited comments on Alma and thoughts about SB79 in this area. Mr. Cain stated the City is still deciding how to approach SB79. State law allows for implementing it as written or designating certain sites as being exempt under certain conditions. That exemption would be good until 2032. An alternative plan could be adopted that gets reviewed by the state and approved rearranging where the density goes. The overall density state law currently allows cannot be reduced. There are current discussions with an ad hoc of City Council about those options and scheduled to go to the full Council on the first Monday in May. Staff level and consultant's analysis has shown there is not likely to be a lot of redevelopment at this station. Chair Chen asked for additional thoughts on the three alternatives compared to the existing on packet page 107. Vice Chair Adcock preferred more separated bike lane options but had concerns about the easement issues. Mr. Sensenig stated alternative one works solely with the right of way. There is an opportunity to get an access easement and widen the sidewalks on either. Alternative two would require working with landowners on the north side to expand that path. Alternative three could have a narrower sidewalk and work within the right of way but requires considerable movement of infrastructure, curbs, and street trees. Vice Chair Adcock preferred alternative two on the bottom left. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the plan will include a bike path above Middlefield. Mr. Sensenig replied there are three to four segments along San Antonio Road that will require a unique condition. What Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/19/26 happens in those areas will spur off what is decided in this area. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested combining options two and three. Mr. Cain responded that could be made to work moving the curb on the north side to create bike lanes and removing parking on the south side and leaving the bike lane at street level. Vice Chair Adcock was inclined to make the north side a safe bike lane for going to Caltrain. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 11:49 a.m.