Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-04 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting MINUTES: Thursday, June 4, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 a.m. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mousam Adcock, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: Board Member Yingxi Chen Chair Adcock welcomed everyone to the meeting. The clerk called roll and declared a quorum. Vice Chair Rosenberg welcomed the new chair and stated the group is excited for her leadership. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes planned for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, announced that the June 18 meeting is canceled due to a lack of quorum, no new ARB projects were received since the last meeting, and the Economic Development Committee has reviewed the shrink wrap affecting downtown properties and the retail ordinance. ACTION ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [26PLN-00050]: Request for Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Six- Story Parking Garage with 266 Parking Spaces Replacing Existing Parking Lot D. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Downtown Parking Garage Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2017052040) Has Been Prepared. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). Board Member Jojarth disclosed that he has a conflict of interest with the property to be discussed and excused himself from the chambers. Vice Chair Rosenberg disclosed that she visited the site and asked if this is the second time ARB has reviewed this property, which was confirmed. Page 2 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Chair Adcock disclosed she visited the site. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation on the proposed City parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue, including the project location, overview, plans and elevations, materials, and plaza design. This project came to ARB for a study session on December 4, 2025, and was revised in response to ARB comments. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced Packet Page 11 and asked for clarification on the timeline. Holly Boyd, Assistant Director of Public Works, confirmed the design contract was awarded to Watry in 2015. They got through the certification of the EIR and approval of planning before Council put it on hold in February 2019, due to lack of interest and funding. In late 2024, a new contract with Watry went to Council with various options, including the area to be set aside for future affordable housing. Council approved Option 1A, which included a 6-story parking garage and the area set aside on the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. Board Member Hirsch asked about the garbage removal included in the plan and noted that other commercial facilities there take care of their own garbage. Ms. Boyd said the properties along Waverley all have their own garbage and oil separators, except Lot 85, which uses the parking lot for that. The City plans to enter into agreement with the property and business owner to accommodate their refuse in the planned garage in exchange for payment. Discussions have not started on that but similar setups were done in previous parking garages, such as the Lot R Garage on Alma Street. Chair Adcock asked if the trash area in the garage intends to serve the future housing development or is only for garage cleanup. Ms. Boyd clarified that the trash area is only for the garage and Lot 85. The future affordable housing will need their own refuse area. Board Member Hirsch asked if anyone has studied the section set aside for affordable housing and voiced concerns about it having underground issues related to the garage. Ms. Boyd responded that, in 2025, the City worked with the Watry and Hayes Group to come up with preliminary feasibility sketches of how that affordable housing could look. They talked to an affordable housing partner, Alta, to check feasibility, which Alta confirmed. Utilities for that housing would need to come off the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. Ken Hayes, Principal at the Hayes Group, thanked Public Works and staff for helping get the application to ARB. Mr. Hayes presented an overview of the project's location, neighboring historic resources and commercial buildings, and garage program. The garage will be 6 levels with 266 parking stalls, 42 bike spaces, trash enclosure, and plaza. Hayes Group is collaborating with the Public Art Program to include a public art piece at the site. Future solar panels are planned for the rooftop. Mr. Hayes outlined the site and design constraints, preliminary options, elevations, materials, landscape plan, and plaza design. PUBLIC COMMENT: Herb Borock pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan requires that when parking spaces are removed from a lot, they need to be provided someplace else. Mr. Borock stated that because the project at Lot D will make up for spaces lost at Lot T on Lytton Avenue, the projects are Page 3 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 connected and should be considered together per the environmental quality act. Mr. Borock said there used to be a self-cleaning public toilet at the corner of the lot, which needs to be replaced as part of the proposed affordable housing project. Regarding access for pedestrians and bicyclists, Mr. Borock stated that the signal and cycle times vary at the intersection of Gilman and Waverley, whether cycling automatically or responding to traffic demand on Gilman. Mr. Borock recommended determining how traffic is managed there and seeing if Transportation wants to change that in any way and making that part of ARB's approval. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, responded to public comment that, while the City desires and plans to replace the parking, it is not legally required. Ms. Raybould noted that the Lot T and Lot D projects have independent utility, are not required to be analyzed together under CEQA, and are being analyzed separately. Related to public comment, Vice Chair Rosenberg believed the project did not include or require a public bathroom facility, which Mr. Hayes confirmed. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked which kind of ginkgo trees are planned for the landscaping and noted some varieties emit an unpleasant smell. John Potis, Landscape Architect at Merrill Morris Partners, clarified that female ginkgo trees have fruit that smells like vomit. Mr. Potis noted it is rare to get a female tree by accident. If that happens, the tree will be replaced. Vice Chair Rosenberg pointed out the triangular planting space on the landscaping plan and asked if there is any desire to put a climbing vine there. Mr. Potis confirmed that a climbing vine is planned. Board Member Hirsch noted the variety of access points to this property, with the major one being on the corner. Mr. Hayes replied that the corner is considered the main pedestrian entry for those who do not need to take the elevator and added that those going down the stairs get a view of the post office opposite. Board Member Hirsch pointed out how the paseo turns the corner and heads toward CVS, where the CVS back door is closed and there is no need for access, and wondered if the distance maintained there is for garbage removal. Mr. Hayes opined that the alley system in Palo Alto is very cool and the site designers tried to enhance the alley access for people cutting through. Mr. Hayes added that they have to be at least 10 feet back to accommodate the unprotected openings for ventilation, which avoids putting a ventilation system in the garage. The 16 feet allows for pedestrian access and stormwater treatment area. Ms. Boyd added that they need to maintain car access for private parking behind the AT&T building. Board Member Hirsch asked if there is any flexibility in the width of that area. Mr. Hayes explained that 6½ feet is raised planters for stormwater treatment. There are transformers and switches above grade at the very rear of the building, so the trash enclosure has doors that open to that alley but the plans do not envision GreenWaste trucks coming down the alley. Page 4 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Board Member Hirsch acknowledged the significant effort to have the ends of the vehicular way open and light-filled from the perimeter surfacing. Board Member Hirsch asked if they maintained light consistency there in anticipation of the future housing. Mr. Hayes explained that wherever the wall of the housing is defined is from the edge of that front perforated metal and the solid wall of the building. The back portion of the building, where there is metalwork along the paseo, will need to be filled in when the housing is built next door because that becomes a firewall. Board Member Hirsch asked if that light-filled perimeter could be maintained if the housing were separated by a lightwell with an easement. Mr. Hayes replied there are many ways to go about keeping that feature but it is a matter of how desirable the site remains for getting a reasonable yield. Mr. Hayes thought the massing diagram showed the anticipated housing having 5 floors with 3 units per floor. If that was carved out at the back in order to have an unprotected opening, the housing would have to have a solid wall facing the metalwork. If it was a lightwell, the housing wall facing the parking garage would have to be solid and the lightwell would be 10 feet. Chair Adcock pointed out that if the housing perimeter wall is 10 feet away from the metal screen, the housing cannot have any windows facing that unless they move another 10 feet back. Mr. Hayes confirmed the housing could not have traditional windows facing that garage wall 10 feet away. Mr. Hayes added that in the initial studies they showed Council, they had all circulation along that side, with an elevator, 2 stairs, and mechanical spaces, and the housing was oriented toward Waverley, the paseo, and Hamilton for its light and air. Board Member Hirsch noted that having the garage corner seen is an important visual and wanted to see sketches suggesting how the housing could work relative to the garage. Mr. Hayes responded that the packet includes a couple pages showing what the future housing massing might look like. Vice Chair Rosenberg said they are Sheets 3.12 and 3.13. Board Member Hirsch said it wasn't a very specific sketch and he was more interested in seeing setback lines, a visual of how well the garage will be seen relative to the massing, and a sense of the lightwell or means of separation between the garage and housing. Mr. Hayes said if they have a firewall at the edge of the garage, which is the solid wall, they could do whatever they want on the housing side of it. They could have a skylight that washes that wall with light and the housing on the other side of that could have the circulation awash in light, though that is not seen much in low-income housing. Board Member Hirsch recommended an open area between the buildings and some form of easement that allows that to remain for the sake of the garage. Mr. Hayes asked staff if the garage and housing would remain a single property or be subdivided. Ms. Boyd was unsure if it will be subdivided and emphasized that Council's direction was to reserve an area for future housing and move forward with this garage. Vice Chair Rosenberg believed there was no timeline or anything started for that housing project, which Ms. Boyd confirmed there was not. Page 5 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Chair Adcock asked if the garage would continue to be City-owned and the housing would be a City- owned building and rental property. Ms. Boyd was unsure and thought the City would own and lease the land but not own the building. Board Member Hirsch suggested it may be something like a 100-year ground lease. Chair Adcock referenced an image of what the garage might look like with housing in place. Chair Adcock noted that part of the housing is shown notching back while the pedestrian diagram shows the stair and pedestrian access angling into the housing property. Chair Adcock asked if that walkway would be maintained by the housing owner and if this is a concern. Mr. Hayes said that housing project developed there needs to take that into consideration as a site constraint. In one housing sketch, they created a notch between the 2 buildings, which creates an open space under the cantilevered portion of the housing for pedestrian access and addresses the fire separation issue. Mr. Hayes emphasized that these housing outlines have not been presented to anybody. The alternate housing sketch is shown completely set back 10 to 15 feet to allow the corner of the garage to be exposed. The first sketch leaves the façade back on that left-hand portion but cantilevers the housing portion closer to the corner to get more floor area for housing while keeping the ground level open for pedestrians. Chair Adcock acknowledged the unknown of the future housing and said that while the splaying out of the stair is nice, they should consider leaving a 5-foot walkway within the garage's rectangle instead of into the rectangle for future housing. Mr. Hayes agreed the stair will need to pull back if they strike a line in line with the solid vertical wall defining the plaza and garage. That space is open in both housing options shown, so an easement may be needed to allow pedestrian access. Vice Chair Rosenberg pointed out how the landscaping diagram on Packet Sheet 4.1 shows the stair looking much skinnier at the base with ample space to walk past it without imposing on the plaza. Gordon Knowles, Principal at Watry Designs, Inc., explained that what is shown on the landscape design is a slightly earlier version where they studied a 5-foot opening for the stair. The architectural plans and renderings show a wider flare and grander stair, which was a takeaway from the previous informal review by ARB. Mr. Knowles said they talked about keeping that corner as open and grand as possible, so that stair flexed and would require an easement to allow the pedestrian area to open up on that corner. Mr. Knowles said that an ARB concern heard last time was about creating a tiny pedestrian exit but the stair can be narrowed to a more typical width. Mr. Knowles stated the flare is more for design and urban impact and noted they are restricted on moving the stair too far back because of the drive isle on the upper levels; moving that back would move the circulation into a tight parking plan. Chair Adcock asked about the PV canopy. Mr. Hayes confirmed the rendering where the top looks solid is the PV and without the PV, it is beams and open. Chair Adcock asked if the parking garage is required to provide PV by 2025. Ms. Boyd shared that, in the past, they have tried to add PV because it is the perfect installation on City parking garages. Ms. Boyd believed the current code does not require PV but imagined the PV installation would be bid as an add alternate to the project when it goes to construction, similar to a recent Cal Ave garage. Page 6 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Mr. Knowles added that they often have PV on garages associated with office buildings to provide demand for that. Because this project is a standalone parking garage, they have more exceptions and fewer limitations. Chair Adcock asked if the garage will be sprinklered, which Mr. Knowles confirmed. If the PV canopy is added and becomes a coverage, they would provide sprinkler under the canopy. Chair Adcock noted the fencing along the paseo and asked for elaboration on that and whether there is any egress from Tai Pan or next door. Mr. Hayes said there needs to be a gate coming out of that fence because there is a rear exit from Tai Pan and there needs to be a gate from this building because they have their own trash there. The fence will hide the back of the buildings in a consistent way but will need to have gate perforations in it. Board Member Hirsch asked if they will be maintaining their garbage in open areas behind their building and bring it out during garbage collection. Mr. Hayes thought they would bring it out on collection day, although it is fairly close and GreenWaste will move garbage containers as long as they are within 25 feet of the property line. Chair Adcock noted the fence goes to the end of the garage and it is open past that. Chair Adcock asked staff about removal of the public restroom at this location and if there was any discussion about providing that public amenity again. Ms. Boyd responded that the public restroom on that corner was removed 3 or 4 years ago and the City does not want to install a restroom at any of its garages at this time. Board Member Hirsch stated that access to the elevator is remote relative to the entrance and architectural element at the front corner of the building. Board Member Hirsch said more activity should be invited to the front corner to make it functional and recommended the elevator be closer to the front of the building with clear access and handicapped parking for easy access. Board Member Hirsch noted there is more parking in the front of the building than the rear, so the front is likely to fill up well. Mr. Knowles explained that the location of the elevator and stair core to the northwest of the plan is a result of the geometry of the parking ramp and circulation, which needs a certain length to move floor to floor and make those rotations. The south area on the plan is the only place with enough depth to make an efficient parking and ramp plan. In the 2019 design, they had an elevator further east on the plan but that area is now allotted for future residential. Mr. Knowles said placing the elevator more centrally puts it within the parking area and the garage would lose parking stalls. Board Member Hirsch thought if the elevator was not in the back, they could compress the stair and get replacement parking in that same location. Board Member Hirsch stated that Palo Alto's standard downtown parking garages have everything at the corner next to the public right-of-way or pedestrian ground-level areas. Board Member Hirsch clarified that he did not mean the parking layout or circulation should change when moving the elevator closer to the main entrance. Mr. Knowles said one of the other considerations is the requirement that the elevator be within 200 feet of any stair that does not have its own elevator, which the current central location of the elevator Page 7 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 maintains. If the elevator is moved too far from the stair, they would need a second elevator or to have a stair operating only as a fire egress and not a circulation stair. Vice Chair Rosenburg argued for the elevator to stay where it is for safety reasons because Board Member Hirsch's suggested location is not on the street face, making it more isolated. Vice Chair Rosenburg said that providing a centrally-located circulation space makes it safer to walk through this lot alone at night because it is easy for people to get to their vehicles at a short distance with other people coming and going from that location. Board Member Hirsch clarified his suggested location for the elevator is near the elbow of parking spaces on the ground floor. Mr. Knowles replied that moving the elevator to that spot creates 3 circulation cores. Vice Chair Rosenberg thought the suggested location felt more dangerous because it places the elevator in an island surrounded by vehicles. Board Member Hirsch countered that on any typical floor, people have to walk through a car path anyway and all vehicles going up the ramp could avoid the suggested elevator location. Mr. Knowles noted that the ground floor is where vehicles are entering and exiting and typically paying less attention to their parking and movements and 100 percent of vehicles go through that area. Chair Adcock pointed out that the current elevator location is where all the pedestrian walkways meet. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that most people going up the first 4 flights are likely not using the elevator and this plan puts the elevator where people do not have to cross a vehicle path to get there. Mr. Hayes asserted that the elevator is located where multiple pedestrian paths come together. Mr. Hayes noted that the first studies had the elevator at the main feature stair, but as the design progressed, other pathways were added, and they worked with Watry on travel distance, this location was considered reasonable. Mr. Hayes added that this elevator location was shown at the previous ARB discussion in December and did not come up. Chair Adcock spoke in support of the current elevator location because it is a City garage at an intersection of 2 streets with people using the elevator from 4 different directions and this location is central to all pedestrian pathways. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there are lights down the paseos. Mr. Hayes confirmed they have festoon string lights down the paseos. Board Member Hirsch emphasized that the elevator location needs more study because this is not a typical parking garage and having the elevator at that stair corner would be a benefit. Vice Chair Rosenberg argued for keeping the elevator as designed, which enlivens the back portion of the parking lot that may otherwise be neglected and/or avoided and having that elevator back there is beneficial to people coming from all directions, including the alleyway. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it is a very well-done project and expressed support for it as designed. Chair Adcock expressed thanks for the presentations and thoughtful design and agreed that the elevator is in the ideal location. Chair Adcock stated that planning for an easement from an unknown project is Page 8 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 not the best course of action and urged the planners to reduce the width so the walkway is at least 5 feet and all pedestrian walkways are within the design. Chair Adcock applauded the beautiful materials and proportional, appealing design. Chair Adcock acknowledged that PVs are nor required but hoped PVs could be added now because it is a good investment for public benefit and it is rare for projects to add PV later. Board Member Hirsch said the project and materials are very nice and the concept of the corner treatment is going to be amazing and distract from the ugliness of the AT&T building. Board Member Hirsch said the plan requires caution regarding how to keep it easily identified from down the street once housing is added. Board Member Hirsch hoped the façade of the housing could be kept back and suggested they recommend strongly to Council through Planning to maintain the aesthetic of the garage, specifically keeping the corner visible from everywhere. Board Member Hirsch suggested consideration of moving the elevator to the front, as it only changes the circulation, not the design. Board Member Hirsch said he could not recommend approval of the project today. Vice Chair Rosenberg moved that the ARB recommend approval as presented with a condition of reevaluating the splayed angle of the bottom stair to ensure a 5-foot passage next to it. The motion was seconded by Chair Adcock and passed 2-1-1 (Hirsch no, Jojarth abstained, Chen absent). Board Member Hirsch had nothing further to add regarding his no vote. The ARB took a break from 9:57 a.m. and resumed at 10:05 a.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Request for Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct an Eight-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 228 Rental Apartments. Thirteen (13) Percent of the Units (30 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Lower Income Households. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) "Builders Remedy". A Senate Bill 330 Pre- Application was Filed January 9, 2024. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) has Been Prepared. Zoning District: CS (AD); Service Commercial (Automobile Dealership). Kristina Dobkevius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation on the builder's remedy project at 762 San Antonio Road, including the background, ARB review process, location, state law constraints, site plan, materials, key considerations, and CEQA status. Council decision on this project is anticipated for August 2026. The proposed project is 8 stories tall and includes 228 rental units, of which 30 are below-market-rate (BMR) units, and 248 above-ground parking spaces. In August 2025, ARB provided preliminary design feedback that focused on reducing perceived massing, improving architectural articulation, enhancing ground-floor activation, strengthening landscape and open-space design, and improving circulation and rooftop usability. The applicant has since revised the project from 7 to 8 stories, increased the unit count from 178 to 228, and incorporated ARB feedback. Page 9 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Chair Adcock referenced the project rendering on Slide 9 and asked if the eyebrows shown at the top of the elevation are within the property line. Ms. Dobkevicius responded that this rear façade has a 10-foot setback and offered to find the eyebrow dimensions in the plans. Matt Hengehold, Co-President and General Manager at Hengehold Trucks, provided the applicant presentation. Mr. Hengehold noted his family's long history on the site and hoped for this property to continue serving the community. Mr. Hengehold stated that the design team listened carefully and refined the project in response to ARB feedback. Mr. Hengehold expressed appreciation for ARB's guidance and time spent reviewing the project. Mark Johnson, Founder and Managing Partner at Acclaim Companies, is the developer for the project and spoke about significant changes to the project plan. Mr. Johnson acknowledged Board Member Hirsch for time spent sketching out ideas, meeting, and engaging in constructive dialogue. Mr. Johnson shared a slide summarizing improvements since the previous ARB meeting and said these revisions reflect ARB comments regarding circulation, access, functionality, and pedestrian experience. Chris Lee, Principal at Studio T-SQ, echoed that the design team took ARB's feedback seriously and incorporated much of it to improve the project. Mr. Lee provided further details on the improvements and design, including urban design concepts, floor plans, street elevations, setbacks, façade articulations, and courtyard landscape design. Mr. Lee added that the rear elevation canopy is within the property line and the setback is 10 feet, greater than the required setback of 5 feet. Chair Adcock asked for disclosures regarding this item. Board Member Hirsch disclosed he met with the developers and had previously visited the site. Chair Adcock disclosed she visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg disclosed she visited the site previously but not recently. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Board Member Hirsch asked who will be using the parking spaces in the San Antonio entry area. Mr. Lee replied that the San Antonio Road entrance only serves Level 1 while Levels 2 and 3 will enter from Leghorn. Mr. Lee said there will be no gate before the first area, which can be used for pickup or delivery services and will have about 20 stalls for guest parking. Mr. Lee stated that beyond the gate is all assigned parking. Board Member Hirsch asked if the pickup area works for self-driving pickups like Waymo. Mr. Hengehold said one of the Planning and Transportation commissioners is an employee of Waymo and said Waymos do not go inside buildings at this time. Mr. Lee thought Leghorn would be an option for Waymo because of the secondary lobby there. Mr. Hengehold said Waymo currently picks up in the oil changer's parking lot on the corner. Page 10 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 Vice Chair Rosenberg noted the pet washroom on the first floor inside the garage and wondered where the previously mentioned dog run area is located. Mr. Lee said the fenced dog run area is the entire reverse L shape area on the map. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted the dog wash area is adjacent to the dog run area but not accessible from it, so residents would have to walk from the dog run to the garage and then to the dog wash. Mr. Lee replied that the intention is for a door going out to the run and it was missed on the plan. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it is a small nitpick but the orientation and location of that door should be carefully chosen to consider the movement of animals between the washroom, apartments, and dog run area. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked about unit types and floor plans and noted that pages like A104 are the only indications of what these units will look like. Mr. Lee responded that 90 percent of the units have a layout but because of time constraints and many incorporated changes since last round, 2 or 3 of the special unit types have not been completely figured out, so they elected not to show them. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it is hard to approve a plan without knowing what is going on inside but it appears there is a nice mix of apartment types. Mr. Lee confirmed the mix of apartment types: 9 studios, 121 1-bedrooms, 63 2-bedrooms, and 25 3- bedrooms. Vice Chair Rosenberg referenced Page A103, pointed out a 2-bedroom unit on the inner elbow of the building, and voiced concerns about this type of unit not getting enough natural light and air. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that, without a floor plan, it is difficult to assess the layout and functionality of units. Mr. Lee replied that units like this have worked very successfully at other buildings because some people prefer the greater privacy, noise buffer, and less bright lights. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was any consideration to combine that 2-bedroom unit and the neighboring studio into a 3-bedroom unit so it has a longer stretch of windows. Mr. Lee said they can consider that. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked a few questions regarding the enlargement plan on Page L-101. Mr. Lee confirmed that the pool deck shown is on top of Level 3 with 5 levels above it and confirmed that Levels 7 and 8 have sky lounges next to them. Chair Adcock asked for clarification on the parking garage. Mr. Lee confirmed that Level 1 is accessed only from San Antonio and the upper 2 levels from Leghorn and all parking is assigned, so residents know which entrance to use. Chair Adcock noted the area plan intends for no cars to stop on San Antonio, so Waymos or other self- driving cars stopping on the street because they cannot come into the garage is a concern. Ms. Dobkevicius clarified there are no loading spaces on San Antonio or Leghorn. Mr. Lee explained that delivery and pickup will be inside the garage. Chair Adcock acknowledged that the question of how to accommodate self-driving cars is a larger question for the City. Chair Adcock asked about the pool. Mr. Lee said the plan is for a raised pool with an accessible ramp and a fence around it. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted Page L-101 shows it and says plus 2 feet related to the Page 11 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 pool. Mr. Lee said that half the pool depth extends down into the parking below and half is above for a total depth of 4 feet. Regarding unit types, Chair Adcock noted the units in the building knuckle, aside from 1 floor, are designated as below-market-rate and appear to be in the less desirable corner. Chair Adcock recalled another project that planned on using borrowed light from the living room into the bedroom and asked if that is planned with this. Mr. Lee responded that those units have worked well for other projects and all 3 rooms have windows. Mr. Lee offered to provide unit floor plans to the ARB. Chair Adcock said that the San Antonio side, with the canopies over the balconies, seems organized with the overall composition but the opposite side (Page A331) has eyebrows that cover some, but not all, windows. Mr. Lee responded that the intent was to accentuate the corner and not to have too big an element. Chair Adcock voiced concerns about the western exposure having a lot of heat gain and noted the compositional logic of covering pairs of windows, similar to the San Antonio side of the building, falls apart at the corner, where some windows are not covered. Mr. Lee said the back of the building faces east, so heat gain is less concerning, but offered to look into it. Board Member Jojarth noted comparisons between the previous and current plans. It was confirmed that the plan went from 197 units to 228, total square footage went from 36,000 square feet to 42,000, about 15 percent larger, and amenity space went from about 13,000 square feet to 15,000. Board Member Jojarth recalled previous comments about the development being too big and noted it returned to ARB even bigger. Board Member Jojarth wondered if it will be even bigger at the next meeting and asked what the limit is. Ms. Raybould responded that this project is allowed under builder's remedy but the ARB has the right to provide comments on it. Chair Adcock stated that the development standard applied to this site is the El Camino Real Focus Area, which is at the top of Packet Page 60. Allowable height in El Camino Focus Area is 85 feet and this project is 84 feet. Chair Adcock asked if the builders need a waiver or concession to build it higher than 85 feet. Ms. Raybould said the developer could go higher but it might push them into another level of construction, so they may not be interested in doing that. Under builder's remedy, they could propose it and ask for a waiver. Board Member Hirsch added that the zoning said it was an FAR 4 and therefore conforms to the decisions made for the focus area. Ms. Raybould confirmed that the project was analyzed in comparison to the El Camino Real Focus Area, which is what the City is required to apply to the site under AB 1893. Chair Adcock noted how Level 3 has garage on the interior with residential on the exterior perimeter and asked if it is concrete podium construction with 5 levels on top, so the third-floor units are concrete construction, which Mr. Lee confirmed. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant and noted Palo Alto desperately needs housing. Vice Chair Rosenberg thought it was a wise use of the space and said having 2 garage access points is a clever way to get residential parking off of San Antonio. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted there are always concerns Page 12 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 about DoorDash, Amazon, and other deliveries, so designating spots at the entrance off San Antonio and clearly marking them helps a lot. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated trash is always an item and the planners thought about that well. Vice Chair Rosenberg said the project aligns with the area, will be a beautiful addition, and the shape of the lot makes the front façade on San Antonio less imposing while still having a lot of structure. Vice Chair Rosenberg expressed appreciation for the 10-foot setback and the use of one as a dog run. Vice Chair Rosenberg applauded the landscape plans and work-from-home lobby. Board Member Hirsch agreed with previous positive statements by other board members. Board Member Hirsch suggested considering locations for maintenance trucks because they will be needed eventually and recommended handicapped parking near the rear elevator so they have access to the center of the building. Board Member Hirsch thought the fire control room in the front lobby was odd and wondered if it could move to the other side/further north to make a more spacious entrance. Board Member Hirsch applauded the amount of public use spaces and voiced concerns about ramp connections from the lower parking to the next level and asked the developer to make sure that works well for safety's sake. Board Member Hirsch said dividing the bike parking areas and getting them out the side yard is terrific and agreed the façade is wonderful and hopefully sets a standard for articulation of details on San Antonio Road. Board Member Hirsch applauded the scale, material choices, and position and location of the pool for optimal sunshine. Board Member Hirsch said the question of Waymo is a City issue. Board Member Hirsch recalled another project that had a lay-by within the 25- foot setback, which may be a possibility here. Board Member Jojarth clarified that his earlier question came from surprise rather than criticism. Board Member Jojarth said he looked at the table of ARB comments and applicant responses but the big change of increasing the building size by almost 20 percent would have been nice for the applicant or staff to communicate. Board Member Jojarth stated it is great to have this kind of building on San Antonio, which he opined is the new Palo Alto. Board Member Jojarth liked the use of multiple outdoor areas and how the Level 7 open area gives the building a stepped façade. Board Member Jojarth appreciated how the developer met and collaborated with Board Member Hirsch and thanked Board Member Hirsch for his contribution. Board Member Jojarth felt the drop-off area in the Level 1 garage will be hard to use because it is hard to turn around. Board Member Jojarth recommended traffic management measures to ensure safe use of the drop-off, such as mirrors. Board Member Jojarth said the materials are beautiful, façade is balanced, and the design is considerate of neighboring properties. Chair Adcock acknowledged that builder's remedy projects are hard and thanked the applicant for a nice job with the composition and design. Chair Adcock hoped the overall look can be maintained as they go over construction documents. Chair Adcock liked the screen that becomes a trellis at the roof and hoped the structure for it isn't so heavy that it takes away from its lightness. Chair Adcock applauded the amenities, voiced concerns about not having any unit plans, and assumed there are in-unit laundries. Chair Adcock said the pool deck level is lovely and hoped it could be a good size with a depth that families can really enjoy. Chair Adcock appreciated the window proportions and lower sill heights for tenant access to natural light and views. Chair Adcock concluded it is overall a very nice project and very needed housing. Board Member Hirsch moved that the ARB approve acceptance of the project, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg. Motion passed 4-0 (Chen absent). Page 13 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 6/4/26 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 7, 2026 Steven Switzer, Senior Planner, noted that Board Member Jojarth was absent from the May 7 meeting. Vice Chair Rosenberg moved approval of the May 7, 2026, ARB meeting minutes as written, seconded by Chair Adcock. Passed 3-0-1 (Jojarth abstained, Chen absent). BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Mr. Switzer confirmed the next meeting is cancelled. Chair Adcock shared she will be absent July 2, so Vice Chair Rosenberg will lead the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Adcock adjourned the meeting at 11:16 a.m.