Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, August 20, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM   Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 76, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS   1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.1185 Skyline Boulevard [26PLN-00157]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Skyline Field Office That Includes Approximately 36,480 Square Feet of Buildings and Structures and Associated Facilities for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). CEQA Status: Preliminary Review Only, Not A Project. 3.3997 Fabian Way [24PLN-00280]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Construct a New Seven Story Multi-Family Residential Development Containing 273 Rental Units The Project is Proposed in Accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Processed as a Streamlined CEQA Review Under Section 15183. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM) within GM/ROLM Focus Area. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2026 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT   INFORMATIONAL REPORT The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and available for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. A.Public Comments   PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 20, 2026 Report #: 2608-6624 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: ARB meeting schedule Upcoming ARB agenda items Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: September 3, 2026 Stanford Shopping Mall: Victoria’s Secret 950 Page Mill Road: Master Sign Program The following new ARB project was submitted: 690 San Antonio 26PLN-00211 Major Architectural Review for 66 For-Sale Townhomes. A Separate Vesting Tentative Map Application is Under Review for the Lot Subdivision (26PLN-00211). Zoning District: PC-4843. Attachment A: 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments : ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 1 2 1 4 9 2026 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Hirsch 2/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 3/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Rosenberg 4/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/7/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Jojarth 5/21/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/4/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 6/18/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Adcock, Chen, Rosenberg 7/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Adcock 7/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/6/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/20/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2.. Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 20, 2026 Report #: 2607-6559 TITLE 1185 Skyline Boulevard [26PLN-00157]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Skyline Field Office That Includes Approximately 36,480 Square Feet of Buildings and Structures and Associated Facilities for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Zoning District: OS (Open Space). CEQA Status: Preliminary Review Only, Not A Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the preliminary project plans and provide comments. No formal action is requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) requests preliminary ARB review of a new Skyline Field Office at 1185 Skyline Boulevard, which would replace Midpen’s existing Skyline operations facility. The development area spans two Midpen-owned parcels in Palo Alto and extends onto a San Mateo County parcel. A subsequent formal application would require Major Site and Design Review under Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 18.28 and 18.30(G). The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) would review the Site and Design findings, the ARB would review the Architectural Review findings, and the City Council would take final action with consideration of recommendations from the ARB and PTC. The plans are conceptual and have received only a preliminary zoning review. However, the plans as proposed may require revisions or consideration of a design enhancement exception or variance as detailed further in this report. Staff requests ARB feedback primarily on the site layout, visual compatibility with the OS district, building massing and height, parking and operational areas, utility screening, landscape character, and nighttime lighting. Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2.. Page 2 of 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Skyline Field Office would function primarily as a field operations and maintenance campus supporting Midpen’s Land Stewardship & Trails, Visitor Services, and Facilities & Fleet departments. Activities would include ranger operations, open-space maintenance, equipment and fleet maintenance and storage, material storage, preserve infrastructure repair, emergency response, and related field-support functions. Midpen anticipates approximately 75 to 80 employees at long-term buildout. The preliminary plans show a field office campus organized around an administration building for rangers and maintenance staff, a warehouse/wash/fuel building, a fleet maintenance shop, three equipment storage structures, a pump house/trash structure, and outdoor employee, fleet, equipment, and material storage areas. The administration building is two levels and approximately 13,380 square feet and would provide supervisory and administrative functions supporting field operations. It would also include hoteling workstations used by field staff for timekeeping, reporting, e-mail, training, and similar tasks before or after field assignments. The conference room would primarily serve staff meetings and briefings, with occasional public or Midpen Board meetings. Midpen anticipates one dedicated administrative assistant regularly assigned to the facility. Other proposed structures are all single-story with a combined area of approximately 36,480 square feet. The site plan shows 60 employee parking spaces, 9 visitor spaces, and 51 fleet spaces, which total 120 spaces. Bicycle parking and loading requirements are not shown on the plans. Access to the site would be provided from a revised curb cut and new driveway off of Skyline Boulevard, and emergency connections are provided to/from the site from existing Christmas tree farm roads. A 123,000-gallon domestic fire-water tank, four hydrants, an onsite wastewater treatment system with primary and reserve mound areas, an electrical yard, a trash enclosure, above-ground gasoline and diesel tanks, and a vehicle wash bay. Operations would vary by department and season, with maximum anticipated operating hours of approximately 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Project Information Owner: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Architect: Siegel & Strain Architects Representative: Erica Strohmeier, Midpen Project Manager; Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address:1185 Skyline Boulevard City APNs: 351-06-017 and 351-06-025 San Mateo County APN: 080-302-040 Neighborhood:Skyline Region Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2.. Page 3 of 8 Lot Dimensions & Area:APN 351-06-017 (1185 Skyline Blvd) - 24 acres APN 351-06-025 (Christmas Tree Farm) - 802.2 acres APN 080-302-040 (San Mateo County) - 18.2 acres Project site: 826 acres Housing Inventory Site:Not applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Multiple mature oaks and firs are shown for removal. An arborist report and protected-tree determination have not yet been submitted. Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):Midpen employee residence, Christmas tree farm lease, wells, water tank/pump facilities, and rural roads/driveways. Existing Land Use(s):Open space/residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning:North: OS (Open space) West: OS (Open space) East: OS (Open space/Christmas tree farm) South: OS (Open space) Aerial View of Property: Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2.. Page 4 of 8 Source: Midpen Preliminary ARB Package Plans Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:Open Space (OS) Comp. Plan Designation:Open Space (OS) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District X Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000) SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Within Airport Influence Area Prior City Reviews & Action None ANALYSIS Preliminary review applications receive initial feedback for zoning and policy issues. A Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2.. Page 5 of 8 comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal and may identify additional corrections, discretionary applications, or environmental issues. The discussion below identifies the main issues identified for early ARB input. 1 2 Site Organization and Open Space Character Building Massing, Height, and Architecture 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2.. Page 6 of 8 additional height is necessary. Staff encourages the ARB to provide feedback on the massing of the project and how it relates to the setting. Setbacks, Parcel Configuration, and Scenic Corridor Floor Area and Impervious Coverage Parking, Loading, and Circulation Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2.. Page 7 of 8 the field rather than at the facility. During the primary field season, maintenance staff are generally expected to spend approximately one to two hours per day onsite. Midpen reports that the 51 fleet spaces would accommodate 21 patrol vehicles and 30 maintenance vehicles. Approximately 10 to 12 employees currently carpool, 5 to 7 employees arrive in District vehicles, and typical visitor demand is approximately one to two visitors per day. Visual Resources, Trees, Landscaping, and Lighting Midpen states that topography and vegetation screen the site from Skyline Boulevard. This should be demonstrated through story poles and verified simulations from Skyline Boulevard, nearby public trails and parklands, and other public viewpoints. Simulations should include the buildings, parking, water tank, fuel and electrical areas, lighting, tree removals, and winter or leaf-off conditions where relevant. This is required by code prior to any public hearing on the formal application. Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2.. Page 8 of 8 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS Report Author & Contact Information Joey Dinh, Senior Planner (650) 838-2865 Joey.Dinh@paloalto.gov ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 5 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     080-210-030 080-301-999 � Project Site r--, Area of Workl ___ l 080-301-010 � Project Parcels in Palo Alto � Project Parcel in San Mateo County � Zoning Districts t"' _-, City Boundary CITY OF PALO ALTO 351-04-031 351-04-023 OS 351-12-056 080-313-030 ATTACHMENT A: Location Map 1185 Skyline Blvd Project Site 351-12-069 This map is a product of City of Pa lo Alto G IS 0 500 1,000 Feet Item 2. Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 16     4 3 2 1 ATTACHMENT B 1185 Skyline Boulevard/26PLN-00157 Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.30(G).055, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will be required to make the Site and Design Review findings in PAMC Section 18.30(G).060. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.30(G).055(c), once PTC makes the required findings, the Architectural Review Board will be required to make the Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d). Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.30(G).055(d), the project will be submitted with both recommendations to City Council for final action. For reference only; no findings are made as part of this preliminary review. Site and Design Review Findings (PAMC Section 18.30(G).060) Finding 1: To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Finding 2: To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. Finding 3: To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. Finding 4: To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Item 2. Attachment B - Findings for Approval (Reference Only)     Packet Pg. 17     4 3 2 1 Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2. Attachment B - Findings for Approval (Reference Only)     Packet Pg. 18     ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1185 Skyline Boulevard, 26PLN-00157 TABLE 1: LAND USES – OPEN SPACE (OS) DISTRICT Definitions Land Uses Permitted (P)Proposed Project “Open space land”: Any parcel or area of land essentially unimproved or in its natural state, and devoted to an open space use as defined in this section, and which is designated in the open space element for an open space use. “Open space use”: the use of land for: (1) Public recreation; (2) Enjoyment of scenic beauty; (3) Conservation or use of natural resources; (4) Production of food or fiber; (5) Protection of persons and their artifacts (buildings, property, etc.); (6) Containment and structuring of urban development. PAMC 18.28.020(d) and (f) Open-space uses such as botanical conservatories, outdoor nature laboratories, and similar facilities – (P) Accessory facilities and accessory uses – (P) PAMC 18.28.040 – Table 1 Complies. Principal use is public open space land and its management, maintenance, protection, and public use. Accessory use is field office facility; includes: - Employee, visitor, and fleet parking - Material stockpiles - Fleet service area with washing and fueling - Administrative offices - Hoteling space - Conference/public meeting room - Covered heavy-equipment storage - Warehouse and maintenance material storage - Electrical yard Item 2. Attachment C - Zoning Compliance Tables     Packet Pg. 19     TABLE 2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OPEN SPACE (OS) DISTRICT Regulation OS Requirement Proposed Project Front Setback Street-Side Setback Special Setbacks PAMC 18.28.050; PAMC 20.08 30-foot front and street-side setbacks. 200-foot special setback from Skyline Boulevard Page Mill Road. Complies. The proposed development is 281 foot - 7 inches from Skyline Boulevard. Rear Setback PAMC 18.28.050 30 feet.Appears to comply. Rear setback measurement not provided, but proposed development appears more than 30 feet from the rear lot line. Interior Side Setback and Uses in Required Yards PAMC 18.28.050; PAMC 18.40.060 30 feet. Exterior material storage is not listed as a permitted use within a required yard. Does not comply. Equipment Storage 3 is 10 feet - 5 inches from the interior lot line. Material storage areas appear adjacent to or near the interior lot line. No setback dimension is provided. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) PAMC 18.28.050(b)(2) 5% of site area. Complies. APN 351-06-017: 3.9% FAR APN 351-06-025: <1% FAR Maximum Impervious Coverage PAMC 18.28.050(b)(2); PAMC 18.28.070(m) 3.5% of site area. Paving is weighted at 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, as determined by the Director. Does not comply. APN 351-06-017: - Parcel size: 1,045,000 square feet - 3.5% of parcel size: 36,575 square feet - Impervious coverage: 107,133 square feet Maximum Building Height PAMC 18.28.050 25 feet.Does not comply. Tallest building is 27 feet. Maximum Stories PAMC 18.28.050 Two stories.Complies. Admin building is 2 stories, all other buildings are 1 story. Item 2. Attachment C - Zoning Compliance Tables     Packet Pg. 20     Item 2. Attachment C - Zoning Compliance Tables     Packet Pg. 21     TABLE 3: PARKING, BICYCLE PARKING, LOADING, AND CIRCULATION Regulation OS Requirement Proposed Project Vehicle Parking for an Unlisted Use PAMC 18.52.040 The Director determines the parking requirement based on comparable uses and project- specific demand. Potentially complies. Project proposes 60 employee, 9 visitor, and 51 fleet spaces, totaling 120 spaces. The Director will determine the required number based on the final use and peak occupancy information. Parking in Required OS Yards PAMC 18.28.090(b)(1) Parking is not permitted in a required front or side yard or special setback, except as allowed by PAMC 18.28.090(b)(2). Does not comply. Parking spaces appear within the 30-foot interior side setback. Parking in the 200-Foot Special Setback PAMC 18.28.090(b)(2) Additional parking may be approved at least 100 feet from the affected property line, or no less than 50 feet if 100 feet is infeasible, with screening. Complies. Proposed parking area is shown more than 200 feet from Skyline Boulevard. Bicycle Parking PAMC 18.52.040; PAMC 18.54.060 The Director determines the requirement for an unlisted use. Bicycle facilities must meet applicable design standards. Potentially complies. No bicycle spaces are currently identified. Director will determine the requirement based on the final use, staffing, and anticipated bicycle demand. Loading PAMC 18.52.040 The Director determines loading requirements based on the proposed uses and operations. Potentially complies. Proposed fleet service areas, wash bay, warehouse and shop areas, parking-lot drive aisles, and equipment yards appear capable of accommodating infrequent loading and deliveries. No separate loading-space count is shown. Item 2. Attachment C - Zoning Compliance Tables     Packet Pg. 22     August 6, 2026 Joey Dinh, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Preliminary ARB application for a new Skyline Field Office (SFO) at 1185 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto Dear Joey, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) would like to thank the City of Palo Alto for ongoing coordination regarding our Preliminary ARB application for a new Skyline Field Office (SFO) at 1185 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto. Since our meeting with you and Claire Raybould in April of this year, we have advanced the design to a Schematic Design level, and we have engaged with the neighbors and community through a public Open House on June 6th, 2026. This letter serves to outline our proposed need, our project summary and design concept, questions and focus areas for Palo Alto staff and the ARB and Midpen’s Board review and approval process. Midpen’s need for a new Skyline Field Office Planning efforts to expand and improve the SFO facility first began in 2008, but a major facility project was deferred due to other competing priorities. Since the completion of Midpen’s Open Space Vision Plan in 2012 and the passage of its Measure AA bond in 2014, the number of SFO staff, acreage, and projects serviced by this facility has increased considerably. The current SFO has been and continues to be in active operation for 30 years. The office supports around 50 staff, including rangers and open space technicians responsible for the protection, operation, and maintenance of Midpen preserves. Over the past 30 years, the acreage of open space land that Midpen manages in the area has more than doubled. SFO staff now manage over 41,000 acres (out of a total of >70,000 acres), 246 miles of road and trail, 24 public parking areas, 14 restrooms, 850 culverts and 132 bridges. Although staff have been adaptable and have operated within the current, constrained facility to the best of their and the site’s ability, the existing site can no longer accommodate additional growth nor expand upon its current footprint to support Midpen’s expanded and essential operational needs. ATTACHMENT D Project Description Letter Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 23     2 The new SFO will house the necessary staffing, tools, resources, equipment and materials for Midpen to responsibly manage, maintain, and patrol its numerous Skyline area preserves. This work includes extensive fuel and vegetation management and treatments to reduce the risk of wildfires, which not only protect native habitats from catastrophic fire damage, but also helps enhance the overall fire safety of the Skyline Region and the rural communities that exist within this landscape. As a partner in providing mutual aid, maintaining a strong cohort of fire suppression personnel in the area also provides for quick fire response in the event of an active fire within or near Midpen’s open space lands. Quick fire response from Midpen, such as in the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fires, serves to also protect homes in the Skyline area and beyond from fires that may otherwise grow in size and scale. The additional operational capacity, tools, and equipment will also support Midpen’s resources to complete and manage public access and restoration projects in the Skyline region to meet its Measure AA commitments and priorities outlined in its Open Space Vision Plan. Furthermore, Midpen Rangers stationed at the SFO often provide first aid response when first on scene at an accident or other highway/roadway emergency and regularly support other response personnel with traffic control as needed. Project Summary and Design Concept The new SFO is proposed on a large site made up of two parcels in Palo Alto and one in San Mateo County, all owned by Midpen. Together the area of these parcels is 826.2 acres. Existing uses on the parcels include an employee residence leased to a Midpen staff member and a lease with a Christmas tree farm. The proposed area of work for the new SFO makes up approximately 1% of the total combined area of the parcels. The development is proposed on an eastern-facing hillside with up to 20% slope in some locations. This location was selected for siting the new SFO for the following reasons: • Existing trees and topography screen views of the site f rom Skyline Blvd. • The site was previously developed with a winery building that remained on site until 2014 , and it has a relatively flat area suitable for the field office. • Extensive tree removal is not required since existing vegetation includes annual grasses, shrubs, and relatively few trees (mostly oak and fir). • While the lease areas for the Christmas tree farm and residence will be reduced slightly, both existing uses can be retained and minimally impacted. The approximately 3.2 acres of paving and roof areas plus stormwater and wastewater treatment areas that make up the new SFO have been designed to work with the existing site topography to minimize the extent of grading and retain areas of dense vegetation. Buildings are designed with simple, gable roofs; storage structures have shed roofs. Building materials will be selected for durability, fire-resistance, CALGreen compliance, and with colors that complement and blend harmoniously into the natural surroundings. A variety of uses are proposed at the new SFO, including the following: • Parking and EV charging for employee personal vehicles, visitors, and a future all-electric fleet • Material stockpile space for gravel, boulders, lumber, fencing/gates, and other bulk materials needed for constructing and maintaining trails, roads, bridges, etc. Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 24     3 • A vehicle wash bay for fleet vehicles • Fleet vehicle fueling station Domestic and fire water storage tank and associated pumps • Enclosure for storage of trash/recycling dumpsters • Office and administrative space including private offices, hoteling space, a staff break room and conference room that will occasionally be used by members of the public • Outdoor gathering area for employees • Male, female, and all-gender locker rooms • Shop and vehicle maintenance spaces • Covered structures for the storage of heavy equipment • Warehouse building for storage of various maintenance materials and equipment Reponses to Questions / Comments from Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department Midpen received an email from our Project Planner, Joey Dinh, on July 20, 2026, requesting that we submit additional details about the proposed Skyline Field Office that more clearly describe the facility as a field operations and maintenance facility supporting our open-space management activities and that clarifies the intended use of the administrative office. Joey’s questions and our responses to those questions are delayed below: 1. Please clarify the primary function of the field office facility vs conventional administrative office. o The field office will provide the physical backbone of the Land Stewardship & Trails, Visitor Services, and Facilities & Fleet departments, serving as a hub for manual labor, equipment storage, and field operations. The site will serve the following core functions: ▪ Equipment Care & Storage: Services and stores commercial mowers, tractors, trucks, and handheld landscaping tools. ▪ Preserve Management: Mix herbicides, stocks rock, road base, lumber, culverts, bridge material, and other building supplies. ▪ Structure & Amenity Repair: Fabricates, and repairs preserve benches, signs, bridges, etc. ▪ Waste & Sanitation Hub: Coordinates preserve restroom cleaning and graffiti removal operations. ▪ Special Event Logistics: Stores and transports barricades and other emergency response supplies for the community. ▪ Ranger Services: Provide visitor services including patrol, enforcement, emergency medical services and wildfire response on District lands. ▪ Locker room facilities o The administration office will serve as the organizational hub, handling managerial duties, planning, human resources, and high-level operations that keep the business running . The site will serve the following core functions: ▪ Strategic Planning: Develop budgets, policies, daily/monthly/quarterly work planning, and long-term operational goals. ▪ Financial Management: Handle payroll, billing, purchasing, and overall accounting. ▪ Human Resources: Manages employee hiring, training schedules, benefits, and labor compliance. Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 25     4 ▪ Data & Record-Keeping: Maintains logs, compliance records, and performance metrics for the entire organization. ▪ Staff meetings: And on rare occasions Public Meetings or Board Meetings 2. How many employees are currently assigned to the existing Skyline Field Office? o Land Stewardship and Trails ▪ 26 Full-Time Employees (FTE) ▪ 10 Seasonal Open Space Technicians (SOST) o Visitor Services ▪ 9 Full-Time Employees (FTE) ▪ 2 Seasonal Ranger Aides (SRA) 3. Is the proposed 75 to 80 employees the anticipated maximum long-term staffing at full buildout? o Yes, 75 to 80 employees is the proposed estimate at full-build out over the next 40 years. 4. Of the 75 to 80 employees, how many would typically be onsite at the same time during a normal shift? o Please note that the information provided below is Midpen’s best guestimate of the total breakdown of staff across the three departments that will be based out of the proposed field office. This breakdown is likely to change over the course of the next 40 years, as Midpen continues to evolve. Also note that a significant percentage of the staff listed below spend the majority of their shift out in the field at various preserves and not at the proposed field office location. o Land Stewardship & Trails, 50 staff members – Mon-Fri 6:30 am -5:30pm o Facilities & Fleet, 2 staff members – Mon-Fri 8:00am – 5:30pm o Visitor Services: ▪ 5 staff members Mon-Fri 7:00 am -4:00 pm; 3 staff members 1:00 pm – 10:00 pm; ▪ 5 staff members Sat-Sun 7:00 am -4:00 pm; 5 staff members 2:00 pm -10:00 pm; ▪ Variable by season, winter months the PM shifts are 9:30 am – 6:30 pm 5. Please provide the anticipated staffing breakdown by role including rangers, maintenance staff, administrative or supervisory staff, and other employees or contractors. o The numbers included in the tables below are Midpen’s best staffing breakdown projections for 40 years into the future. Please note that these breakdowns are subject to change in the future. Land Stewardship & Trails Job Title Number of Staff Members Area Manager 1 Maintenance Supervisor 5 Equipment Maintenance Operator 6 Lead Open Space Technician 5 Open Space Technician 15 LS&T Admin Assistant 0.5 Seasonal Open Space Technician 12 Total 44.5 Visitor Services Job Title Number of Staff Members Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 26     5 Area Superintendent 1 Supervising Ranger 4 Lead Ranger 4 Ranger 20 Seasonal Ranger Aide 4 VS Admin Assistant 0.5 Volunteer Program Lead 2 Total 35.5 6. How much of the workday would rangers and maintenance staff typically spend onsite versus working in the field? o Land Stewardship & Trails and Facilities & Fleet: It depends on the season. During the months of May-October, we would expect maintenance staff to spend approximately 1-2 hours per day at the field office. However, during spring and winter it would vary depending on weather and field conditions. During this time frame a significant amount of equipment maintenance is performed, tree removal, trail checks, weather response, amenity maintenance, and other tasks are performed indoors. o Visitor Services: Area Superintendent 90% of workday in office (7.5 hours); Supervising Ranger 50% of workday in office (4 hours), Rangers and Seasonal Ranger Aides 10 -20% of time in office (1-2 hours); Volunteer Program Lead 30% in office (3 hours) 7. What activities would occur in the administration building? o Typical activities would include: Team briefings, work planning, strategic planning related to operational & maintenance goals, payroll and accounting related activities, HR activities such as interviews, meetings with supervisors, project tracking, compliance logs, report writing, timesheet completion, and occasional public meetings. 8. How many dedicated administrative staff would regularly work in the administration building? o One dedicated Administrative Assistant would be regularly assigned to the field office. 9. How would the hoteling or hot-desk spaces be used? o On a typical workday, the hoteling desks would be used by field staff in the morning for time sheets and emails and at the end of the day, field staff would use these desks for timesheets, emails and report writing. On rare occasion, a field staff member might use a hoteling desk for a few hours in order to complete an online training. o There are often field staff that are on modified duty that would use a hoteling station full- time. o Occasionally, staff who are assigned to Midpen’s Administrative Office in Los Altos, might utilize a hoteling desk for a couple of hours if they have been out in the Skyline Region and need to complete some office-related duties. 10. What is the anticipated maximum occupancy of the meeting/conference room? o Max occupancy is estimated to be 56 people seated when combined. When meeting room is divided by partition wall, max occupancy is estimated to be 19 people seated on the smaller side and 37 people seated on the larger side. 11. How often would the conference or meeting room be used for meetings involving members of the public? Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 27     6 o Meetings held by local organizations or any volunteer or docent meetings/events would occur approximately once per quarter with an anticipated meeting attendance of 10 -20 members of the public. It is anticipated that there might be approximately two board meetings per year at the new SFO, specifically if a Board item warrants being presented in our Skyline Region. 12. Please describe the normal hours of operation, shift schedules, and any early morning, evening, overnight, emergency, or seasonal operations. o The current hours of operation and shift schedules are provided below. Please note that with staff increases and potential program changes over the next 40 years, these hours and schedules are subject to change. o Hours of operation are dependent on seasonality. With maximum operational hours of 6:30 am to 11:00 pm. o Ranger staff (Supervising Rangers, Lead Rangers, Rangers and Seasonal Ranger Aides’s) work in two teams that have either Mon/Tues or Thu/Fri off, with rotating Weds off for 9/80 schedules. Questions and Focus Areas for Palo Alto Staff Given the complexity of the site, with multiple parcels spanning two jurisdictions, the primary area on which the project team requests Palo Alto staff input is zoning code standards: • Provide input/guidance on any zoning considerations given that the proposed development spans multiple parcels and authorities having jurisdictions (AHJs). • Provide guidance on applying for a design exception or variance for setbacks and locating parking in setbacks. • Clarify the applicable code for onsite wastewater disposal design and confirm that all permitting and oversight of percolation testing and septic systems is by Santa Clara County Environmental Health, not the City of Palo Alto. • Clarify the applicable municipal code requirements for site/grading design and stormwater management/design (beyond regional C.3 requirements). • Confirm that parking requirements for a similar project like this in the OS district are determined by the City Planning Director and confirm if the following number of parking spaces described below is acceptable for the proposed use of the site. The new SFO is expected to accommodate approximately 75-80 staff members over the next 30-40 years. Per direct engagement with District patrol and maintenance staff, it was determined that 51 fleet parking spaces (21 for patrol vehicles and 30 for maintenance vehicles) and 60 employee personal vehicle parking spaces are required for the SFO. Currently 10-12 staff carpool to the site and 5-7 staff members arrive on site in their District trucks, accounting for the lower number of employee personal vehicle parking spaces needed compared to the total number of staff. Additionally, 9 visitor parking spaces are proposed. On average, there is 1-2 visitors anticipated per day. For evening public meetings, employee personal vehicle spaces can be used for visitor parking since staff will not be on duty. • Confirm what additional information is needed (if any) for the purposes of the Planning director to determine the required number of bicycle parking spaces. • Given the rural location of this site, confirm if the City require the project to comply with California Building Code requirements for site lighting levels . Even with DarkSky compliant fixtures, egress light levels can feel very bright on a rural site with little to no ambient light like this one. Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 28     7 The project team also requests input on the following Building Department and Fire Department topics: • A vehicle fueling station with a 1,500-gallon gasoline tank, a 2,000-gallon diesel tank, and a single fuel dispenser is proposed for the new SFO. Tanks will have double -wall / secondary- containment and are proposed aboveground with a visual or automatic monitoring system. Please confirm that the following are acceptable for the proposed fueling station: o Per the CFC 2306.2.3, fuel tanks may be located 5’ minimum from the nearest important building and separated from one another by 3’ minimum. Because this is a fleet vehicle motor fuel-dispensing facility, a minimum spacing between tanks and the dispenser is not required. o Per the CFC and CBC, structures within 10’ of the fuel dispenser will be 1-hr rated construction. • Given that the City of Palo Alto has a mutual aid agreement with Woodside Fire Protection District, San Mateo County Fire, and CAL FIRE, confirm what type of outreach and coordination the Midpen project team should do with these agencies or confirm if Midpen should anticipate working directly with the Palo Alto Fire Department as lead agency to conduct agency review and coordination. • Confirm that other than an Excavation and Grading Permit and Building Permit, no other permits will be required for the new SFO project. ARB Focus Areas Given the complexity of the site configuration and boundary, with multiple parcels spanning two jurisdictions, a County of San Mateo scenic corridor designation for Skyline Boulevard, and lack of nearby water systems on site, the project team requests that the ARB focus primarily on major site design and layout issues, such as: • The project team’s proposal to develop structures and parking within setbacks (with a design exception). • Potential visual impacts of the proposed site improvements on the City of Palo Alto. Coordination with San Mateo County Planning Department Given that a portion of the proposed driveway and access road and uncovered gravel parking spaces for the new SFO are located within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo’s jurisdiction, Midpen has also initiated pre-permitting discussions with San Mateo County Planning to coordinate with their Planning staff on the permitting approach, schedule and County’s approval process. In early conversations held individually with San Mateo County Planning and City of Palo Alto Planning, Midpen understands that both agencies agree that Midpen would initiate and obtain permit approvals with the City of Palo Alto first before seeking permits from San Mateo County Planning. Both the City and County Planning Departments agreed to coordinate with each agency on the timing of their respective permit approvals. Midpen’s Board Review and Approval Process Midpen is the Lead Agency for the project under CEQA, and the City of Palo Alto would be a CEQA Responsible Agency. Midpen has already contracted with Panorama Environmental to prepare all CEQA Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 29     8 documentation. As of the date of this cover letter, several technical studies have been completed, and Panorama is awaiting direction from Midpen to begin preparation of the CEQA Project Description. Midpen understands that the formal Planning Application for the proposed project will need to be submitted and reviewed by Palo Alto’s Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) followed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and subsequently presented to City Council for final review and approval. In addition, through communication with City Planning staff, we also understand that the City of Palo Alto will not be able to schedule the project for a PTC meeting until the Public Draft of our CEQA document is in circulation. For the City of Palo Alto’s review and comment, below is a draft tentative schedule that outlines when the Midpen Board of Directors will likely be reviewing and approving certain aspects of the project at public hearings and how they might be coordinated with the public hearing s that will be scheduled by the City of Palo Alto. Please note that Midpen seeks comments on this draft schedule as a component of this Preliminary ARB Submittal to ensure the public processes of both agencies are fully and accurately incorporated. Item Anticipated Date Submit Palo Alto Preliminary ARB Application June 17, 2026 Palo Alto ARB Study Meeting for Preliminary Application August 20, 2026 Present Design and Cost Updates to Board October 2026 Submit formal Planning Permits with Palo Alto November 2026 Present 100% Design Development plans and CEQA Update to Board March/April 2027 Circulate Draft CEQA IS/MND Spring 2027 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Public Hearing Spring 2027 Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Public Hearing Early Summer 2027 Complete CEQA / Board Certification of IS/MND Summer 2027 Palo Alto City Council Public Hearing Summer/Fall 2027 San Mateo County Planning Commission Public Hearing Fall 2027 Thank you so much for your time and attention to this application. Please reach out to Midpen’s Project Manager for the new SFO, Erica Strohmeier, with any questions or comments . You can reach her directly at estrohmeier@openspace.org or at (650) 772-3663. Sincerely, Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Item 2. Attachment D - Applicant Project Description Letter dated Aug 6, 2026     Packet Pg. 30     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT E: In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Commissioners for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Use the map to find “1185 Skyline Blvd” and click the green map icon link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/1185-Skyline-Blvd Item 2. Attachment E - Preliminary Project Plans dated June 17, 2026     Packet Pg. 31     Item No. 3.. Page 1 of 13 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 20, 2026 Report #: 2607-6558 TITLE 3997 Fabian Way [24PLN-00280]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Construct a New Seven Story Multi-Family Residential Development Containing 273 Rental Units The Project is Proposed in Accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Processed as a Streamlined CEQA Review Under Section 15183. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM) within GM/ROLM Focus Area. RECOMMENDATION Conduct a study session to provide feedback on whether adjustments to the application would result in closer adherence to the objective design standards contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.24, Objective Standards, consistent with the streamlined review pursuant to 18.77.073 for housing development projects. This project is subject to a Director’s decision and does not require a recommendation from the ARB. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application includes 273 residential apartment units across an approximately two-acre site. Twelve (12) units (5 percent) will be provided at a rate affordable to tenants at Very Low Area Median Income (AMI).1 The project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Accountability Act and qualifies for a Density Bonus based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. As a State Density Bonus project, the project is eligible for one concession as well as unlimited waivers to accommodate the development in accordance with the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) allowances (California Government Code (GC) §65915 and PAMC Chapter 18.15). The project requests multiple waivers from development standards, as 1 For rental development projects, the City does not require on-site affordable units; instead, applicants must pay a housing impact fee. However, the applicant is choosing to provide 12 units (5% of the base units) as on-site below- market rate units at a rate affordable to very low income. As a result, the amount of housing impact fees will be reduced, as set forth in PAMC Chapter 16.65 and under Ordinance 5623 (https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48302&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto). Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 32     Item No. 3.. Page 2 of 13 discussed later in the report. The project is being reviewed under the process outlined in PAMC Chapter 18.77.073 Streamlined Housing Review. BACKGROUND Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 3.. Page 3 of 13 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:General Manufacturing (GM) Comp. Plan Designation:Light Industrial (LI) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project X Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards X Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District X Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 3.. Page 4 of 13 Prior City Reviews and Action 3 No formal application for rezoning was filed. 4 for the 2.15-acre site, which is used to determine the BMR requirements. The applicant has proposed to provide 5% (12 units) of the base units on site and pay the remaining impact fees to satisfy the City’s affordable housing requirements. By providing 5% of the units on site at Very Low Income (VLI), the applicant is eligible for a 20% density bonus per GC §65915 and PAMC Section 18.15.030 Table 1. 3 February 8, 2021 Council Meeting: Study Session Item 2: https://www.paloalto.gov/City-Hall/City- Council/Council-Agendas-Minutes 4 Base density is calculated by taking the permitted floor area for the site (94,245 sf lot area * 2.5 FAR = 235,613 sf gross floor area) and dividing it by the average residential gross floor area per unit (1,039 sf). This calculation (235,613/1,039 = 226.8) results in a base density of 227 units on the 2.15 acre site. Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 3.. Page 5 of 13 projects are evaluated against specific findings. Both of the findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project re-design or denial. The required findings that would need to be made for this type of application are included in Attachment B. Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Item No. 3.. Page 6 of 13 Lanteris Space System research facility and office. Across the street is also the location for the new Girls Middle School facility which was approved in June 2025. ANALYSIS 7 8 By providing 5% of units on site at VLI, SDBL provides an additional 20% density bonus, which allows for up to 46 additional units beyond the base density, resulting in an allowed density of 273 units. The project proposes 273 units. Housing Element 7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/2030-Comprehensive-Plan 8 Base density is calculated by taking the permitted floor area for the site (94,245 sf lot area * 2.5 FAR = 235,613 sf gross floor area) and dividing it by the average residential gross floor area per unit (1,039 sf). This calculation (235,613/1,039 = 226.8) results in a base density of 227 units on the 2.15 acre site. Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 3.. Page 7 of 13 provides more VLI units than anticipated but does not provide any moderate-income units on site. State Density Bonus Law Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 3.. Page 8 of 13 and supported by the required density bonus requirements. Revisions to the waiver request may be warranted prior to a decision on the project. Trash Staging and Collection Object Design Standards Consistency Per PAMC 18.24.050(b)(2)(A), a landscape screen of one tree per every 25 linear feet and a continuous shrubbery planting must be planted along the interior property line shared with the Moldaw Residences that will be at least 72 inches tall at planting. The applicant is clustering trees along the shared line rather than placing one tree each 25 feet and filling the remaining gap with shrubbery that will be 72 inches tall at planting. Per PAMC 18.24.060(c)(3)(A)(1), the rear façade facing the JCC Oshman Family building and the interior side façade facing 849 East Charleston Road (Mashgin) must have a vertical break that is at least two feet deep and four feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm or a unit between 20 to 50 feet in width; or a vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of two feet that established the vertical rhythm housing units or individual rooms between 10 to 16 feet in width. Per PAMC 18.24.060(c)(1)(A), the design must incorporate three of the four options along 80% of the façade length to create a base-middle-top design. As proposed, the application does not appear to provide a horizontal or vertical shift in façade articulation that achieves the requirements in (A)(i) or (A)(ii) as the window elements are not fully projecting or recessing from the building façade. Instead, their windows are inset to the flat wall plane of the wall. Additionally, the shade elements are limited to only certain facades of the buildings and the datum lines are not distinctive to create a top nor wrap around the whole building at a point outside of the ground floor garage. Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Item No. 3.. Page 9 of 13 Other standards highlighted in Attachment D that are not noted here need additional clarification or details in the plans to demonstrate they comply with the standard, as noted in the attachment. Modifications to the design or identification of additional waivers or a concession pursuant to SDBL would be required to address inconsistency with these objective standards. Should the applicant request a waiver or concession, they must provide documentation which adequately justifies how meeting them results in a cost reduction for the project or how the development standard physically precludes development at the density proposed. 11 The applicant is providing 5% of units at VLI, where 9% would represent the full affordable housing obligation and is therefore meeting 5/9 or 55.5% of the full obligation through onsite units. Accordingly, the normally applicable affordable housing impact fee will be reduced by 55.5%. This approach complies with the City‘s inclusionary housing ordinance and is consistent with SDBL regulations. Per the City’s standard conditions, a regulatory agreement must be recorded for the BMR units to ensure compliance with the City’s citywide affordable housing requirements (PAMC Chapter 16.65) and the project description. This agreement must be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. In reviewing the proposed distribution on sheet G2.2, staff has directed the applicant to reconsider their distribution as no BMR units have visual access to the primary courtyards and Fabian Way viewshed which is designed to be the focal point of the project for future residents. 11 Note: the arithmetic provided as an example in Ordinance 5623 is incorrect. The figure “66%” should be “75%.” Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     Item No. 3.. Page 10 of 13 The existing parcel currently has four curb cuts along Fabian Way which provided access to the previously existing buildings on site. The project proposes one 25-foot-wide primary driveway to the above ground parking garage and one 12-foot-wide driveway to an onsite loading zone along the Fabian Way frontage (see sheet A1.1). The proposed configuration is intended to concentrate on-site circulation through the primary entrance on Fabian Way for vehicles and trash service. The primary driveway is roughly 200 feet from the intersection at East Charleston Road and Fabian Way, which is intended to avoid vehicle queuing at the intersection. Transportation staff have requested that the applicant consider pushing the driveway further along Fabian Way to improve site circulation and reduce conflicts near the intersection. A local transportation analysis is currently being prepared as part of the CEQA review for the project to identify and evaluate any site-specific circulation concerns such as this. Vehicle and Bike Parking South Palo Alto Bikeways Project13 13 South Palo Alto Bikeways Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/South-Palo-Alto-Bikeways- Project Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Item No. 3.. Page 11 of 13 a waiver. It would additionally require the City to develop its future Bikeways Project to cater to this specific project. While staff has directed the applicant to redesign their project to provide an on-site staging location for trash pick-up, the ARB is encouraged to comment on how this would affect the Bikeways project and circulation to and from the site. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 15 The project would be required to pay Development Impact Fees which are currently estimated at $11,730,834.81 plus the applicable public art fee. Additionally, a housing impact fee currently estimated at $2,647,862.70 will be required to account for the remaining Citywide affordable housing requirements per PAMC Section 16.65.030(c). STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 15 Link to 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule: Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule.book Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 3.. Page 12 of 13 accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and will need to be completed prior to issuance of a decision on the project and prior to any recommendations on the Vesting Tentative Map. 2024/25 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Remediation Order ATTACHMENTS Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     Item No. 3.. Page 13 of 13 Report Author & Contact Information ARB17 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Principal Planner Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2321 Garrett.Sauls@paloalto.gov Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 17 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 3. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 44     10 10 10 10 15 Building 6 Building 5 OFFICES OFFICES OFFICES Building 1 Building 2 K A H J B G M L KORET CAMPUS Embankment Easement 65.0' 112.1' 31.6' 82.5' 40.8' 24.2' 131.0' 98.0' 34.3' 24.0' 106.1' 51.0' 35.4' 106.5' 43.0' 76.3' 160.0' 56.3' 31.4' 140.0' 60.0' 160.0' 60.0' 160.0' 207.0' 83.0' 200.8' 74.8' 8.3' 216.3' 83.0' 207.0' 83.3' 225.5' 83.0' 216.3' 83.3' 134.5' 226.4' 128.1' 225.8' 226.4' 63.8' 67.6' 222.9' 138.0' 160.0' 64.2' 177.9' 75.8' 60.0' 160.0' 64.5' 160.1' 111.0' 65.0' 173.6' 65.0' 65.0' 65.0' 82.5' 225.5' 89.5' 235.4' 225.8' 235.6' 225.0' 254.4' 74.5' .8' 100. 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 244.42' 100.0' 109.5' 52.2' 106.1' 24.0' 34.3' 102.0' 98.3' 27.4' 112.3' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 120.0' 200.0' 120.0' 200.0' 132.0' 110.6' 70.0' 115.2' 132.0' 130.0' 15.8' 79.7' 160.' 147.2' 140.' 31.4'127.2' 870 89 9 80 0 Bldg 1 80 0 Bldg 2 80 0 Bldg 6 80 0 Bldg 5 3950 830 3997 3977 3963 3960 3980 801 849 811 860 4057 4055 844 80 0 4017 4015 806 3921 3903 867 869 870 872 874 876 878 880 868 866 864 862 860 858 856 801 802 803 804 805 807 808 80 9 826 824 822 820 818 827 825 823 821 819 817 828 829 830 831 832 881 883 885 887 889 891 893 882 857 859 861 863 865 825A FABIAN STREET FABIAN WAY EAST CHARLESTON ROAD Altaire Walk Federation Way PC-49 PC-491 RM-20 Kehillah Jewish High School This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Highlighted Features 0' 87' Location Map: 3997 Fabian Way CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2026-07-17 08:15:31 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 3. Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 45     4 2 0 2 ATTACHMENT B In order for the Director to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. Finding #2: Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Item 3. Attachment B - Streamlined Housing Development Findings     Packet Pg. 46     ATTACHMENT C 3997 FABIAN WAY, 24PLN-00280 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (GM DISTRICT) WITH GM/ROLM FOCUS AREA STANDARDS Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area 1 acre 12,124 sf (0.28); 9,600 sf (0.22); 16,867 sf (0.39); 17,558 sf (0.40); 18,328 sf (0.42); 19,770 sf (0.45) 2.16 acres Minimum Setbacks (2) (1) ≈50 feet to shared side yard property line; ≈20 feet to shared rear yard property line; ≈ 45 feet to street side yard property line; ≈180 feet to front yard property line 10 feet along shared interior yards to the property line; 15 feet along street side yard to property line Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 10 feet ≈50 feet to shared side yard property line; ≈20 feet to shared rear yard property line 10 feet along shared interior yards to the property line Special Setback 15 feet along Fabian Way; 10 feet along East Charleston Road ≈ 45 feet to street side yard property line; ≈180 feet to front yard property line 15 feet along Fabian Way; 10 feet along East Charleston Road Max. Site Coverage 70% (Focus Area)22% (36,164 sf)78% (73,408 sf) Max. Landscape Coverage 20% (18,849 sf) (Focus Area) N/A 25% (23,772 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 2.5% (235,613 sf) (Focus Area); 3.0 allowed w/ 5% VLI BMR provided 15% (36,164 sf)3.01% (283,578) Max. Building Height 60 ft (Focus Area)≈20 ft 95 ft, 5 inches Daylight Plane Initial height of 25 feet then slope of 1:1 Complies Does Not Comply (1) For any property designated GM and fronting on East Bayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 feet along that frontage is established. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Residential Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per studio/one- bedroom; 1.5 per 2+ 120 spaces 332; 15 compact stalls Item 3. Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 47     bedroom (Focus Area) (311 required) Bicycle Parking 1 long term per unit; 1 short term for every 10 units None 273 long term spaces; 28 short term spaces Loading Space 1 short term loading spaces None 1 in loading area Item 3. Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 48     ATTACHMENT C 3997 FABIAN WAY, 24PLN-00280 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (GM DISTRICT) WITH GM/ROLM FOCUS AREA STANDARDS Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area 1 acre 12,124 sf (0.28); 9,600 sf (0.22); 16,867 sf (0.39); 17,558 sf (0.40); 18,328 sf (0.42); 19,770 sf (0.45) 2.16 acres Minimum Setbacks (2) (1) ≈50 feet to shared side yard property line; ≈20 feet to shared rear yard property line; ≈ 45 feet to street side yard property line; ≈180 feet to front yard property line 10 feet along shared interior yards to the property line; 15 feet along street side yard to property line Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 10 feet ≈50 feet to shared side yard property line; ≈20 feet to shared rear yard property line 10 feet along shared interior yards to the property line Special Setback 15 feet along Fabian Way; 10 feet along East Charleston Road ≈ 45 feet to street side yard property line; ≈180 feet to front yard property line 15 feet along Fabian Way; 10 feet along East Charleston Road Max. Site Coverage 70% (Focus Area)22% (36,164 sf)78% (73,408 sf) Max. Landscape Coverage 20% (18,849 sf) (Focus Area) N/A 25% (23,772 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 2.5% (235,613 sf) (Focus Area); 3.0 allowed w/ 5% VLI BMR provided 15% (36,164 sf)3.01% (283,578) Max. Building Height 60 ft (Focus Area)≈20 ft 95 ft, 5 inches Daylight Plane Initial height of 25 feet then slope of 1:1 Complies Does Not Comply (1) For any property designated GM and fronting on East Bayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 feet along that frontage is established. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Residential Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per studio/one- bedroom; 1.5 per 2+ 120 spaces 332; 15 compact stalls Item 3. Attachment D - Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 49     bedroom (Focus Area) (311 required) Bicycle Parking 1 long term per unit; 1 short term for every 10 units None 273 long term spaces; 28 short term spaces Loading Space 1 short term loading spaces None 1 in loading area Item 3. Attachment D - Objective Design Standards Analysis     Packet Pg. 50     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 51     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 52     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 53     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 54     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 55     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 56     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 57     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 58     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 59     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 60     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 61     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 62     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 63     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 64     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 65     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 66     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 67     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 68     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 69     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 70     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 71     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 72     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 73     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 74     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 75     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 76     Mr.and Mrs.MichaeL Levy 899 E.Charleston Road Palo Atto,CA 94303 Cett Phone:650 302-0149 eMait:Mlevy1973@gmail.com June 9,2025 Mr.Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait; We believe the first obligation of the Palo Alto City Council should be to protect the health and welfare of the existing residents of the community. As proposed,the approval of the construction of an eight-story apartment monotith on the Fabian Way site with no setback viotates that obligation of the Council. As shown in the renderings of the construction,that construction has the potential to turn the Moldaw apartments tacing onto Fabian Way into dark caves potentially triggering SAD according to Johns Hopkins Medicine1. Similarly,the introduction of hundreds of more vehicles into the traffic pattern,with the potential for long periods of idling exhausts as cars wait for traffic lights will cause increased locat air pollution,a major health risk according to the World Health Organization.2 1 Seasonal affective disorder (SAD)is a type of depression.It happens during certain seasons of the year,most often fall or winter.It is thought that shorter days and less daylight may set off a chemical change in the brain leading to symptoms of depression. Johns Hopkins Medicine httpc//swvj.hopkinsrnedicineorg health seasonal-atf... 2Air pollution is a risk for all-cause mortality as well as specific diseases.The specific disease outcomes most strongly linked with exposure to air pollution include stroke,ischaemic heart disease,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,lung cancer,pneumonia,and cataract (household air pollution only). World Health Organization (WHO) Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 77     The current ptan for two Levels above ground parking would also seem to further add to the local air pollution,particularly as cars circle to look to park or idle while waiting in line to exit. And this potential for a dramatic increase in traffic will greatly impact both entry and exit to Moldaw as wetl as all the other residences and business in the immediate area. The increase in traffic in the right turn lane onto Fabian Way has the potential to have a dramatic impact on both entry and exit from Moldaw if that traffic backs up: •Preventing vehicles from leaving Moldaw •Making it more difficult to gain access. Consequently,we urge the Council to reject the current development plans for the Fabian Way site. Res pectfu Ity, Mike and ilyn Levy Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 78     Melanie Rabkin 899 E.Charleston Rd., Apt.H301 Palo Alto,CA 94303 melrabkin@yahoo.com June 10,2025 Jonathan Lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait: My name is Melanie Rabkin,and my husband and I live at Moldaw Residences,the retirement facility on 899 East Charleston Road,next door to the proposed building on 3997 Fabian Way,Palo Alto. I am writing in regard to the proposed height of this building.When we moved in eight years ago the zoning limit for residences was 35 feet, with 150 feet setback,and now the current proposal is 78-88 feet, which is more than double the previous height,with no setback. The excessive height of the proposed building is particularly disturbing as It will cast large shadows over Moldaw reducing natural light,and potentially lowering the value of the units.A loss in property value could severely impact our retirement savings. Furthermore,the proposed building’s scale is incompatible with our neighborhood’s character.It will increase traffic congestion,noise levels,and put additional strain on local infrastructure.These factors could further depreciate property values in the area,affecting many long-time residents,many of whom invested their life savings here.Such a large-scale development could fundamentally alter the area’s appeal and financial stability for retirees. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     I urge the City Council to carefully consider the long-term implications of this development on our community’s seniors and the neighborhood at large. Thank you for your time and consideration of this critical issue. Yours sincerely, 4 Melanie Rabkin Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     Judith &Israel Krongold 299 East Charleston Road J205 Palo Alto,94303 judithk@pacbell.net June 9,2025 Johnathan Lait Director of Planning &Building 285 Hamilton Aveue.SuitelOO Palo Alto,CA94301 Jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Mr.Lait: We are two 90 year-old residents of Moldaw,whose kitchen and bedroom windows face directly at the center of the proposed building site. Never did we expect to be subjected to the construction of an enormous building outside of our windows. The proposed building as planned would come right up to the property line,with no setbacks.It would destroy any sense of privacy,by being within 20 feet of our windows. We never expected that our mental and physical health would be impacted and aftacked by the horrendous noise of construction right outside our windows —a construction that would probably go on for over two years or more.Our well-being will also be severely impacted by this oversized building puffing us into a shadow and eliminating the light and sun that we have enjoyed for the last five years..We will be in perpetual gloom.Can you imagine having our windows look directly into the parking lot level,that would spew fumes from autos into our windows,if we ever again be able to open them. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     The other day there were workers on the site,and I could feel the vibrations of their equipment in my apartment.How can we live with this strain for the necessary years of construction.The thought is already making us anxios. Our entire Moldaw community would also be severely impacted by an oversized building adjacent to us.It’s not only my apartment that would be affected,but all of the apartments that face Fabian Way. The financial impacted on Moldaw that would result by our not being able to sell those apartments facing Fabian Way,would result in severe financial shortcomings.This could make the entire Moldaw community go under,causing mega hardship to not only the residents but also their families many of whom live in Palo Alto. We are all concerned with the shortage of affordable apartments in our area.Moldaw community has done its share by having 21 below market rate apartments available.Construction would make many of those apartments no longer livable.Exactly the opposite result of what we are striving for. Lastly we would like to remind you of the traffic impact on this busy intersection of Charleston Road,Fabian Way and San Antonio.It is already difficult at certain times of day to exit our driveway.Adding many cars to the mix,in addition to those expected from construction further up Charleston Road promises chaos. I hope that the planning commission will take into consideration the many needs of those who are current residents when evaluating new projects. Sincerely, Judith &Israel Krongold Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82     Cr/. ti4f ftfo&, AtILo C% 6/r1-’a - bi4 Lc,&ta 3c itSia1 283-tJ /gt(,((i)O) 3 %%7 FLW PI]/C -akt e, Z JWC 7 , *z %2 O &t %63 ;tI 7g4L,ut 6c AL-4 c5 ii %L% Id V 7;i -- C Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     I /4W1IL WV4 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     Charlotte Epstein 899 E Charleston Rd Apt H208 Palo Alto,CA 94393 ch8r e@yahoo.com June 10,2025 Jonathan Lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto CA 94301 jonathan.Lait@paloalto.gov Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait, I lived in Old Palo Alto for more than 40 years but in March of this year,I moved into the Moldaw so I could enjoy the many advantages of this senior residence.I choose an apartment facing the corner of Charleston and Fabian for its large windows with lots of light and beautiful views of trees,the hills,and of the sky especially at sunset. Moldaw was designed to give seniors,who invest in their apartments,a comfortable,safe and relatively quiet environment in which to live,The proposed project at 3997 Fabian would completely change the dynamics of life at Moldaw.The size of the project and its location next to the Moldaw property line would darken the apartments of many residents,like myself,who are facing Fabian and deprive us of natural light and invade our privacy.There might be 35 affected apartments out of 170 independent living units which is about 20%.If these apartments are less desirable for resale,the financial implications for Moldaw could be severe. Even for residents who do not face Fabian,new traffic conditions could create major disruptions to our lives.The only exit from Moldaw is a driveway on Charleston.Currently leaving from Moldaw can be a challenge while waiting for quiet moments on Charleston.The proposed project would have many more drivers using the right most lane on Charleston for the turn into Fabian.This would make exiting from the Moldaw driveway extremely difficult. Not all residents drive but there are many other vehicles that need to come in and out of Moldaw to provide goods and services for the residents.Fabian Way may not be a Street prepared for the kind of traffic that the proposed project would generate.There are also the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists to be considered. I have watched the changing housing market in my many years in Palo Alto and I recognize the need for more housing.However,the 3997 project as planned is too massive and too disruptive to Moldaw and to the entire neighborhood to be an acceptable solution to the housing situation. ply,. Charlotte Epstein Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     Rita M.King 899 East Charleston Road,pt K—108 Palo Alto,CA 94303-466 1 john.and.nta.kinggmail .com June 10,2025 Jonathan Lait.Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue.Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 onathai.itàriyofpaioalm.org Re:3997 fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait: I am a resident of Moldaw Residences on East Charleston Road.My apartment is K—10$,is on the first floor,and faces Fabian Way.I am writing to you to ask for your help. We have been informed that.seven story apartment complex with two stories of parking is under design for Fabian Way and East Charleston.If this is allowed to be built,it tvould greatly impact my life.I am greatly concerned about the environmental impact that a building of this scope will have on the neighborhood,on Moldaw,and most importantly,for me in my apartment. If allowed to be built so tall as well as so close to the property line,the new building will cause me to live in shadows,instead of the beautiful sunlight I now enjoy.I would not be able to enjoy the stained glass window my daughter made for me and I would lose many plants.In addition,having so many cars will cause air pollution in the area to increase.I have respiratory problems as well as CHF and this would be most dangerous for my health.I would never be able to enjoy my patio again. Adding such a large number of cars to the area will be dangerous,both for walking and driving in the local streets.I.as well as maii’residents of Mo1da use walkers or scooters and adding so many cars will make navigating the crossings in the area extremely dangerous.Any residents with vision or hearing problems will also likely be impacted negatively. Please consider how such a large apartment complex would impact the neighborhood and Moldaw.There are many other considerations in addition to the ones I bring to your attention.Please hold the developers to abide by Palo Alto’s restrictions.Even a four story complex would have a negative effect on our quality of life.Don’t allow them to make it twice as dangerous to our physical and emotional health. Yours Respectfully. Rita King U Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     Palo Atto City Councit Dear City Council members, My name is Theresa Chen,I am a resident at the Moldaw Residences (Moldaw),located at the corner of East Charleston and Fabian Way. In April of 2022,I moved from my single residential house in the Old Palo Alto to Moldaw. White I was alone in my house,I dreaded the isotation and insecuritywhich was compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic.Since then,I found security and a supportive community where I enjoy various activities that have helped me to be healthier and happier. When I Learned of the building of a large apartment complex right next door to us on Fabian, I was alarmed how the building could affect the health and wetl being of our community. Not only will it block the view and sunshine for the residents whose apartments facing the Fabian Way,it could also affect the rest of residents profoundly. With more car traffic at the corner of Charleston and Fabian,we no longer feel safe walking across the streets.Most of us take watks around the street corners and from there to the Mitchell Park and Library.Some of us like to walk across the street to the Piazza market to pick up some groceries needed. Personally,I support the City’s plan on buitding more affordable housings for Palo Altans. However,I would like you to consider other locations rather than the Fabian Way site where the health and wellbeing of senior citizens can be affected. Sincerely, Theresa Chen Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     t Jonathan Lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 jonathan.lait@cityofpaloafto.org Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait: Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 88     •As a resident of Moldaw,my home faces Fabian Way and the western hills.I feel.the proposed structure will create a number of health and safety concerns. I look out at a great view of western sky for sunsets, hills and colorful trees that make me feel well and happy. The proposed structure will block my view and sunlight,and disturb my health and happiness.Please build a lower structure. Living at Moldaw,walking outside is important for health, and swimming in a sunlit ]CC outdoor pool is an asset.As one who enjoys swimming and walking,the proposed building will block’sunlight and leave less open space for walking. Build a lower structure that does not block sun. Safety of focal residents is very important.Traffic will be impacted during construction and increased with more cars.Moldaw residents need space to walk.Families need space for children to play,and safely walk to school. Build a smaller project with less traffic and safety impact. This project can affect the long term financial stability of Moldaw.Moldaw is necessary to house our senior residents.This project will impact the value of Moldaw homes and likely make safes of homes more difficult. Sincerely, Elizabeth Brownefi Moldaw Resident 899 East Charleston Way Unit H302 Palo Alto CA 94303 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 89     V. , p 0 0 E 2 L F 5D C C Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 90     .% - T h L A -3 -1 1 3 : 9c 4-e I 9) b cJ i cc — J — -d 4 L L7 4 — 9)I ci :1 1 - -s -* f 1— \ 2 & Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 91     June 4,2025 From:Marilyn Levine 899 East Charleston Road,#M106 Palo Alto CA 94303 mlevine917gmail.com To:Jonathan Lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 jonathan.laitcityofpaloalto.orq Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait, I am writing to you as a senior citizen residing at Moldaw Residences,a community that many of us are proud to call home.I am deeply concerned about the proposed development near our residence,as I believe it could significantly impact our health,safety,and overall quality of life. One of my primary concerns is the potential increase in traffic that the development is likely to bring.Many residents here,including myself,face challenges with vision,heating,and mobility. The increase in traffic poses a substantial risk,making it difficult and unsafe for us to navigate our neighborhood,whether it be for a leisurely walk or for essential appointments.Moreover,the increased vehicle presence risks blocking emergency access,which is vital for our community given the prevalent health emergencies that arise. Additionally,the proposed development threatens to alter the sense of safety and comfort that we cherish in Moldaw.The influx of construction and new residents could disrupt the tranquil environment we currently enjoy,essential for our mental and physical well-being.Many of us have chosen Moldaw for its peaceful surroundings,crucial for our health as we age.The noise, dust,and general upheaval from construction are likely to have detrimental effects on our day-to-day lives and can lead to increased anxiety and stress among my peers. Lastly,the overshadowing of our homes due to the construction of larger buildings could lead to reduced sunlight,which is vital for our health,particularly in maintaining adequate Vitamin D levels and sustaining mental health.The lack of natural light can lead to depressive symptoms, especially during the colder months,and reduce our overall quality of life. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92     I respectfully urge you to consider these points as you deliberate on the proposed development. Our community’s health and safety must be a priority,and I believe that with thoughtful planning, we can find a solution that minimizes risks to the residents of Moldaw. Thank you for considering our concerns.I look forward to your support in preserving the well-being of all Moldaw residents. Sincerely,- Marilyn Levine 899 East Charleston Road,#M106 Palo Alto CA 94303 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93     From:David Gaskill &Peg Krome:June 8,2025 899 F.Charleston Rd.K304 david @dbgaskill.com pegkrome@gmail.com Jonathan lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Ave Ste 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait As a recent resident of the Moldaw Jewish Residence who used our life’s savings to buy into an apartment from which we could see the skyline ridge where we have hiked for over 50 years. We are emotionally devastated by the potential loss of light,sky and quiet,not to mention the loss of value to our location posed by this proposal.I believe that the proposed construction would be so detrimental to the viability of the Moldaw Jewish Residences that it 1)would constitute elder abuse,for example,as determined in this and other studies- Long-term community noise exposure in relation to dementia,cognition,and cognitive decline in older adults Jennifer Weuvei,Jennifer D’Souza2,Todd Beck3,Denis A.Evans3,Joel D.Kaufman4,Kumar.B.Rajan5, Carlos F.Mendes de Leon2,Sara D.Adar2 iSchool of Public Health,Boston University,Boston,Massachusetts,USA 2School of Public Health,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,Michigan,USA 3lnstitute for Healthy Aging,Rush University,Chicago,Illinois,USA 4School of Public Health,University of Washington,Seattle,Washington,USA 5Department of Public Health Sciences,UC Davis,Davis,California,USA Abstract Introduction:Exposure to noise might influence risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)dementia. Methods:Participants of the Chicago Health and Aging Project (65 years)underwent triennial cognitive assessments.For the 5 years preceding each assessment,we estimated 5227 participants’residential level of noise from the community using a spatial prediction model,and estimated associations of noise level with prevalent mild cognitive impairment (MCI)and AD,cognitive performance,and rate of cognitive decline. Results:Among these participants,an increment of 10 A-weighted decibels (dBA)in noise corresponded to 36%and 29%higher odds of prevalent MCI (odds ratio [ORJ = 1.36;95%confidence interval [CI],1.15 to 1.62)and AD (OR=1.29,95%CI,1.08 to Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94     1.55).Noise level was associated with worse global cognitive performance,principally in perceptual speed (—0.09 standard deviation per 10 dBA,95%CI:—0.16 to —0.03... Discussion:These results join emerging evidence suggesting that noise may influence late- life cognition and risk of dementia. SOURCE H HS PubLic Access Author manuscript Alzheimers Dement.Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 January 01. And from Biulding and Environment 225 (2022)109679 Contents lists available at ScienceDhect Building and Environment ELSEVIER journal homepage:www.elsevier.comllocate/buildenv investigating the effects of different levels and types of construction noise on emotions using EEG data “This research showed significant effects of the noise types and tevets on the overatt amptitude of the brain signaLs.” Producing such conditions likely violates CA Penal Code 368(b)[elder AbuseJ 2}could potentially result in the financial failure of the Moldaw Community through loss of existing and potential residents or at least raise the costs of membership significantly reducing the ability of members to maintain residency. Concerns for this possibility include: Loss of light Increased traffic Potential blocked emergency response Exhaust fumes from apt.garage Horrendous noise of construction Possible highly increased noise levels of occupancy e.g.possibly 12 large fans operating 24/7 facing Moldaw 1) Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     If this development project is undertaken we will be unable to continue to live in our current apartment. David Gaskill,Peg Krome Photos from balcony of K304 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96     4 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97     Sent from my iPhone r ,i /17.A/ Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98     Sue Hartenbaum 899 E Charleston Rd.,Apartment M-308 Palo Alto,CA 94303 June 4,2025 Jonathan Lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 jonathan.Iaitcityofpaloalto.org Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr.Lait: I am a 4-year resident of 899 Charleston Rd (Moldaw).As an Educational Gerontologist, I thoroughly understand the implications of the Fabian project’s effect on our community and the risks to our physical,emotional,and financial stability all affecting our Health and Safety.If the proposed oversized 7-story apartment is built facing Fabian,next door,right up against our property,and only one driveway’s width in front of and towering over our resident’s apartments,it will do irreparable damage not only to the resident’s quality of life facing the apartment but to all residents and the financial stability and longevity of the entire community. Additional problems involve a physical risk to those moving around outside of our buildings due to the large increase in population that an additional 300 or so apartments will create.Those with vision loss,hearing loss,and mobility issues will be especially affected by the congestion and traffic. There will also be detrimental physical challenges to those facing this building that are needed for our resident’s mental well-being (sunlight,increased fumes from traffic,etc.) But,most importantly,Moldaw’s financial stability and long-term survival as a continuing care community is at risk thus putting residents under great emotional stress that will have physical implications.It may not be readily apparent,but the majority of residents have put their life savings into Moldaw to ensure they will be well taken care of as long as they live. The financial risk is as follows: 1)Primarily one entire side of the complex will be difficult,if impossible to rent. 2)Moldaw is dependent upon those large initial fees and monthly rents to survive. 3)Moldaw has an obligation to refund 85-90%of the initial fees when the apartments’are re-rented in the future. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99     4)Many of us have invested our life savings in Moldaw. 5)Moldaw’s current unwritten policy is that residents will be taken care of if they run out of money.This policy will fall apart if we become financially insecure. 6)Those in BMR rentals will likely be thrown onto MediCal if Moldaw collapses financially,thus putting a burden on the state as well. A final word: This building,as proposed,has the potential to destroy Moldaw as a viable continuing care community.I hope this letter helps you to truly understand the danger to our community and the risk you are taking to our health and even our lives. Regards, Sue Hartenbaum Cell #:310-721-1562 Moldaw #:650-223-7234 Suehartenbaum@gmail.com Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100     2- k ., \a m:‘c- 4 & 5c ç ) -p 0 I -Q -.C 3 !f N __ 1 fl C C Cs , I. p ‘1 J, (• J 7 7 nr Q C I Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101     C, . >* ‘ n .c ‘ç 7S D 3 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102     Barbara Bernstein 899 E.Charleston Rd.,Apt.G102 Palo Alto,CA 94303 Barb94040@gmail corn June 6,2025 Jonathan Lait,Director of Planning and Building 285 Hamilton Avenue,Suite 100 Palo Alto,CA 94301 Re:3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear rvir.Lait: I am an 80-year-old woman living at the Moldaw Residences.I moved in 11 months ago after my husband died,and I believed I could live here in peace and comfort for the rest of my life.Now that future is in doubt. I support adding more housing to the city,but I don’t believe that housing should be built with a significant negative effect on current city residents.The proposed development on Fabian would threaten the health and safety of everyone living at Moldaw.Here are some of the major impacts on Moldaw if the housing on Fabian is built as proposed: 1.Greatly increased traffic.Due to the traffic on Charleston and Fabian,it can take several minutes to pull out of the Moldaw driveway.The additional traffic from the hundreds of new residents would create a major traffic problem at the intersection of Charleston and Fabian.That traffic could block the emergency vehicles that frequently enter and exit Moldaw.Many pedestrians and cyclists use the sidewalks and bike lanes on Charleston and Fabian.These adults and children would be at great risk from the increased traffic. 2.Financial implications.Residents here pay a large buy-in to live at Moldaw,with the understanding that a large portion of that amount wH!be refunded to their estate.Having a huge,long-term construction project on the Fabian lot so close to Moldaw will affect people’s desire to live here.I believe many of the residents in apartments facing Fabian will want to leave,and those apartments will be difficult,if not impossible,to rent.The noise and dirt from the construction site will discourage new residents from moving here,and the viability of the Moldaw community will be threatened.All residents (including me)are counting on our buy-in being returned to our estate.The fact that our financial future would be at risk will create major mental and emotional stress for our residents. 3.Community quality of life.The Fabian building as proposed,at seven stories with no setbacks (per the Builder’s Remedy)will dramatically affect the quality of life in our community.The building will block the light and the view on the Fabian side of Moldaw and will create major noise pollution for everyone.Due to the noise,we won’t be able to enjoy the outdoor spaces at Moldaw while the construction is going on.The dirt from the construction will fill the air and discourage us from opening our windows or sitting Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     out on our balconies and patios to get fresh air.We understand that the soil is contaminated,which deepens our safety concerns.In addition,many of our residents (including me)are very hard of hearing and the noise will impede our ability to hear at meals,classes,and lectures.The building as proposed threatens the stress level,safety,and quality of life for our vibrant community of 15 years.I beg you to reconsider the Builder’s Remedy for the Fabian housing. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 104     Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life Owners Association July 12, 2024 Mr. Je/ Farrar Far Western Land and Investment Company je/.farwestern@gmail.com Mr. John Favreau JUNO Realty Partners jfavreau@junorp.com Via Email RE: Proposed Redevelopment of 3997 Fabian Way Dear Je/ and John: Thank you for presenting your project concept to our team and giving us the opportunity to o/er our feedback at this SB 330 pre-application stage of the City approval process. As promised, we are providing written feedback on your project concept from the three entities listed above1 that share two property lines with 3997 Fabian Way. First and foremost, we understand there is a housing shortage in Palo Alto, and we strongly support the idea of building multi-family housing on this site. However, for the reasons set forth below, we oppose your design concept in its current form. We respectfully point out that we raised many of the issues identified in this letter more than three years ago, in a letter dated February 5, 2021 from Larry Marks, then Chairman of the Board of Moldaw Residences, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix 1. As shown below in the architectural renderings that we commissioned to understand the impacts of your proposal on our campus, these issues are substantial and remain unaddressed in your current concept. Of course, we stand ready to engage with you in order to create a design that meets your objectives but also addresses our concerns. 1 The Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life (3921 Fabian Way in Palo Alto) is a multi-generational destination open to the entire community. The 8.5-acre site is anchored by two non-profits – Oshman Family Jewish Community Center and Moldaw Residences – who have contributed materially to the revitalization of South Palo Alto. Each week more than 14,000 visitors utilize the JCC’s Fitness Center, aquatics, preschool, childcare, summer camps, and educational and community programming. Moldaw Residences is a 193 unit senior housing project - including 12 Assisted, 11 Memory Support, and 24 Below Market Rate units - serving 270 senior residents. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 105     2 1. Lack of Compatibility with the Neighborhood Our Campus buildings were designed with the expectation that 3997 Fabian Way would be redeveloped at some future time, but that the redevelopment would not exceed the zoned maximum height of 35 feet for construction, with a setback of 150 feet from residentially zoned properties. Our campus was also designed with the clear expectation that 3997 Fabian Way and other adjacent properties would be subject to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting the side or rear site line of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.20.040 Table 2. At 78 feet in height, your proposed concept is more than twice this expected 35 feet in height and towers over all of the other buildings in the immediate neighborhood by more than 40 feet. Your concept looms over the tallest buildings on our Campus by nearly 20 feet. Stepping your imposing height back from the property lines is crucial to creating some transition between the adjacent residential uses at Moldaw and in the immediate neighborhood. This excessive height and lack of contextual compatibility is the primary source of our specific objections listed below. Moreover, the project misses the opportunity to act as a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character from the single-story adjacent residential uses in the Louis Road area to the taller buildings on San Antonio Road. Accordingly, we do not believe that this project as proposed can meet the architectural design review findings set forth in PAMC Sections 18.76.020(d). In particular: (1) the project is not consistent with applicable provisions of the Zoning Code2; (2) is not consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district because it does not provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story step backs to create a compatible relationship with abutting lower-density residential development3; (3) does not provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations4; and (4) does not enhance living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas5. 2. Impact on Safety and Security The number of antisemitic incidents in the United States – including California – has been steadily growing for more than a decade. A partial list of antisemitic incidents is available here. In 2023 alone, there were 1, 266 such incidents in California. Sadly, Jewish buildings are a target for major crimes against property and people. There have been nine major antisemitic incidents on Jewish sites in California over the past 25 years – including four shooting incidents (in 1999, 2002, 2019, and 2023). Over this period of time, five innocent people were murdered (including victims who were not Jewish), dozens were injured, and a great deal of property was vandalized. Since October 7, 2023, there has been a marked rise in antisemitic behavior nationally and locally. The towering structure you propose provides dozens of venues from which guns could be fired onto our campus, creating unmanageable safety risks. We are especially concerned about line-of-sight access to the JCC outdoor pool deck (see below) and to the Moldaw apartments (see Section 3). 2 PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(1) 3 PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(2)(C); 18.24.040(a)(5) 4 PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(2)(D) 5 PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(2)(E) Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 106     3 View from the JCC Outdoor Pool Deck (Looking South at the pool edge towards E Charleston Road) Proposed and Current We respectfully request that you and the City carefully consider how your concept can be altered to mitigate the safety risks inherent in placing such a tall project abutting a Jewish campus whose non-profit agencies house elderly residents, provide child-oriented community services (e.g., after- school care, summer camps, and a preschool), and o/er educational and arts programs that routinely draw large crowds from the local community. 3. Impact on Health from Shadowing; Obstruction of Views; Noise For the more than 200 senior residents of Moldaw, light, views, and quiet enjoyment are paramount. The average age of the Moldaw resident is 87 years old and, because many have limited mobility requiring the use of canes, walkers, and mobility scooters, they spend a significant amount of time in their living units. As people age, they become more dependent on their environment to compensate for sensory loss and therefore, their environment is critical to their health. Sunlight plays a crucial role in maintaining independence, quality of life, and safety for older adults. If natural light is deprived or restricted, older adults, including those with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, may exhibit reduced neuronal activity in the biological clock that governs circadian rhythms essential to a good night’s sleep. In turn, sleep is essential to good health.6 As shown here, the proposed concept would negatively impact the natural lighting for our senior residents at Moldaw by shadowing approximately 31 units – virtually all of the units overlooking the service drive. As proposed, the project will result in the deprivation of natural sunlight for nearly the entire day for the residents of these units. 6 Light, Sleep and Circadian Rhythms in Older Adults with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias, Mariana G Figueiro, NIH National Library of Medicine Neurodegenerative Disease Management 2017 April; 7(2): 119–145. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 107     4 View from 4th Level at Moldaw Residences (Looking North along the Service Drive) Proposed and Current Additionally, these same units overlooking the service road currently enjoy views of the foothills. As illustrated below, with your concept, these views would be entirely obstructed. Views of nature from windows are associated with reduced stress, improved concentration, and lower levels of depression7. One early empirical test on the healing qualities of the e/ect of viewing nature contrasted two types of views from a hospital room, as reflected in patients' recovery period: Patients in rooms with windows facing a park registered less days of hospitalization compared to those positioned in rooms facing the inner courtyard, had fewer post-operative complications and were evaluated by the medical sta/ as having positive a/ective states8. View from 4th Level at Moldaw Residences (Looking West across the Service Drive) Proposed and Current Lastly, we are concerned that the proposed location of the service area in the back of the building with no setback from our property line may well violate the noise level limitations set forth in the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance set forth in Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and, more importantly, result in significant noise impacts on Moldaw residents who are considered to be “sensitive receptors” under the California Environmental Quality Act. There is clear evidence that environmental noise is a significant cause of sleep disturbances, which in turn is associated with health deterioration. Poor sleep causes endocrine and metabolic measurable perturbations and is associated with a number of cardiometabolic, psychiatric and social negative outcomes. 7 Health Edects of Viewing Landscapes – Landscape Types in Environmental Psychology, Ma. D Velarde, November 2007, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6(4):199-212 8 View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery, Roger S. Ulrich, Science Magazine, 27 April 1984 vo. 224 Issue 4647 pp. 420-421 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 108     5 4. Impact on Environment We believe the project will have a significant impact on the environment, particularly with respect to tra/ic and aesthetics. Therefore, we expect that a full environmental impact report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be required and circulated for public review and comment. We are particularly concerned with the project’s impact on views of the foothills, its compatibility with the surrounding environment, shadowing, noise and tra/ic, including its impact on the intersection at East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road which we understand is among the busiest and most dangerous intersection in the city. 5. Impact on Public Spaces; Financial Viability of Two Non-Profits The proposed project would cast some amount of shadow on the area of our campus pool during the entire year, and near-total shadow across the pool surface for most of winter months. Current Condition December 21 at 9 am December 21 at 3 pm The significant shadowing at the JCC swimming pool will negatively impact hundreds of Palo Alto citizens who regularly use the pool for exercise and recreation. Moreover, the shadowing will negatively impact the financial viability of both the JCC and Moldaw Residences. The significant shadowing of the JCC pool, especially in the winter, is likely to cause a drop in membership that will negatively impact the JCC’s operating budget. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 109     Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 110     7 Appendix 1 Comment Letter to Palo Alto City Council dated February 5, 2021 From Larry Marks, Co-Chairman of Moldaw Residences Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 111     8 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 112     9 Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 113     WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FENTON KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER CAMAS J. STEINMETZ PHILIP S. SOUSA ____________ BRITTNEY L. STANDLEY AMELIA S. FORSBERG LILIAN R. WINTERS JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com OF COUNSEL KENT MITCHELL ____________ RETIRED MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S. GREENBERG DAVID L. ACH ____________ DECEASED JOHN D. JORGENSON (1925-2025) MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R.COSGROVE (1932 - 2017) August 6, 2025 Via Email Only Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Building City of Palo Alto jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Re: 3997 Fabian Way Project (24PLN-00280) Dear Mr. Lait: This law firm represents the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center, a California non-profit public benefit corporation (the “JCC”) and 899 Charleston, a California non- profit public benefit corporation that operates and manages a senior living community (“Moldaw Residences”) with respect to the potential redevelopment of properties surrounding the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life in Palo Alto (“Campus for Jewish Life”) where both organizations are located. As you know, my clients and I have been closely following the proposed 3997 Fabian Way project since its first iteration in 2021. While my clients strongly support multi-family housing on this site to address the shortage of housing in Palo Alto and throughout the State, they have serious concerns about this project’s current design configuration and its resulting adverse impact on the health and safety of the residents and members of, and visitors to, the JCC, Moldaw Residences, and the Campus for Jewish Life as a whole. We have expressed our concerns directly to the developer in a meeting and two letters (see Attachment 1), yet these concerns remain not only unaddressed but also Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 114     2 unacknowledged. We therefore send this letter to you in the hope that it will be taken into consideration and prompt design revisions to the project to address our concerns -- if not voluntarily by the developer -- then as required by the City in order to protect the health and safety of its residents. A. As Currently Designed, this Project Will Result in Adverse Health and Safety Impacts on the Residents and Members of, and Visitors to, the Campus for Jewish Life Approval of this project in its current configuration would essentially “rob Peter to pay Paul”. While it may provide much-needed local housing, this project would deprive large areas of the Campus for Jewish Life, including Moldaw Residences, of direct daylight necessary for the health of their elderly home bound residents, and jeopardize the safety of its residents and the members of and visitors to the JCC and Campus for Jewish Life by creating numerous points of line-of-sight access into private and secure areas. These impacts will, in turn, negatively stress the operating budgets of two vital non-profit agencies serving the Palo Alto community – Moldaw Residences (which provides 193 units of senior housing for up to 270 residents, including 19 below market rate units) and the JCC (which receives more than 18,000 visits per week and is supported by 4,500 members who reside in Palo Alto). The 3997 Fabian Way proposal seeks to build 295 multifamily units, including 19 below- market-rate units, contained within a seven-story, 78-foot-tall, 260,000-square-foot building — all on a 2.15-acre site. The 3997 Fabian Way project is proposed to be built directly on the property line bordering Moldaw Residences, with no setbacks whatsoever. At more than 137 units per acre, it would, to our knowledge, be the most densely developed parcel in the entire City. At nearly 20 feet taller than any building on the Campus for Jewish Life, this project would tower over and overshadow the Moldaw Residences, the JCC pool and deck and other common areas, and other Campus for Jewish Life buildings, resulting in health and safety impacts described below. 1. Adverse Health Impacts As demonstrated in the shadow and visual impact study enclosed as Attachment 2, the 3997 Fabian Way project, as currently designed and configured, will shadow a significant portion of the Campus for Jewish Life for much of the day. The JCC outdoor pool and pool deck, and 32 of the Moldaw Residences units, will be most significantly impacted by these shadows. As shown in the visual renderings, these 32 units will also experience a major loss of natural window-filtered daylight, and the project will tower over and have direct lines of sight down onto the JCC outdoor pool and its popular pool deck. Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 115     3 Dr. Jamie Zeitzer, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and co-director of the Stanford Center for Sleep and Circadian Sciences, explains in his letter to you dated June 11, 2025 (Attachment 3) that this project will result in deprivation of natural window-filtered daylight exposure for nearly the entire day for the elderly residents of 32 of the Moldaw Residences. This light deprivation, in turn, will have a specific adverse impact on their physical and mental health. As Dr. Zeitzer writes, the standard recommendation for a built environment is bright indoor lighting during the daytime and very low or absent lighting at night to maintain a strong and healthy circadian clock. See Attachment 4. Deviation from this standard can disrupt the circadian clock, which can lead to a variety of poor health outcomes, including premature death. He explains that substituting artificial light sources for natural window-filtered daylight may enable seeing objects, however, it is insufficient to support a healthy circadian clock, which is a clock inside the brain that helps to organize the functions of most organ systems. This clock becomes less sensitive to light as one ages and therefore requires more daytime light to function properly. As we age, we become less mobile, spending significantly more time indoors. As evidenced in the shadow and visual impact study enclosed as Attachment 2, this project will obstruct window-filtered daylight from entering 32 units of the Moldaw Residences for nearly the entire day. Accordingly, if this project is approved as designed, these units will no longer meet the built environment standard of bright indoor lighting from natural light sources during the day. This in turn will adversely impact the physical and mental health of the residents of these units, whose average age is 86, and need more daytime light for their circadian clocks to function properly. 2. Adverse Safety Impacts In addition to these health impacts, my clients are deeply concerned about the impact of this project on the safety of the Campus for Jewish Life and its members, visitors and residents. As designed and as shown in the enclosed visual renderings (Attachment 2), this project provides many clear line-of-sight vantage points directly onto the JCC outdoor pool deck and into Moldaw Residences apartments. Given the significant rise of anti-Jewish attacks throughout the Country and in the Bay Area, this proposed project design is a real cause for concern. By recent accounts, the United States is experiencing its worst surge of anti-Jewish attacks in in many decades. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported that hate crimes against the Jewish community increased by more than 360% in the three months following October 7, 2023. “The American Jewish community is facing a threat level that’s now Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 116     4 unprecedented in modern history,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO1. More recently, in April of this year, the ADL reported that this was the fourth year in a row that antisemitic incidents broke all previous annual records. (See Attachment 5) Following that report, in June, a man set fire to peaceful marchers who were calling for the release of Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado. Less than two weeks earlier, a young couple was shot to death while leaving an event at the Jewish Museum in Washington, DC. The previous month, an intruder scaled a fence outside the official residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and threw Molotov cocktails while Mr. Shapiro, his wife, and children were asleep inside. Closer to home, there have been multiple reports of Jewish residents being attacked or harassed and Jewish-owned businesses being vandalized. According to the San Francisco Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, 42% of Jewish people in the Bay Area reported witnessing or experiencing some form of antisemitism in the past three years. See Attachment 6. For example, last month, a man was assaulted and knocked unconscious in an antisemitic attack in the Marina District of San Francisco2 and a Jewish-owned cafe was vandalized with broken windows and antisemitic graffiti3. In June of 2024, antisemitic graffiti and vandalism on Stanford campus resulted in indictments against 12 individuals for felony vandalism4. In December of 2024, the Hillel student house at San Francisco State was vandalized with antisemitic graffiti5. These are all in addition to a growing list of violent attacks on Jewish institutions over the last decades.6 These attacks include two mass shooting attacks on Jewish Community Centers, one in the San Fernando Valley (on August 10, 1999) and one in Overland Park, Kansas (on April 13, 2014), as well as an attack on a Jewish retirement community (also in Overland Park, Kansas on April 13, 2014). B. State and Local Governing Law Allows the City to Require Project Modifications to Avoid Health and Safety Impacts My clients understand that the City’s ability to require any modifications that would result in less than the proposed and allowed density of this project is limited under the State’s Housing Accountability Act. However, the Housing Accountability Act does allow the 1 https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/us-antisemitic-incidents-skyrocketed-360-aftermath-attack- israel-according 2 https://www.kqed.org/news/12044922 3 https://share.google/MCP6Ecjr7U7HRgosN 44 https://da.santaclaracounty.gov/stanford-protesters-charged-destructive-building-takeover 5 https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/sf-hillel-house-near-sfsu-campus-vandalized-antisemitic- graffiti/ 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_Jewish_institutions Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 117     5 City to reject the project or require modifications that would reduce its density in either of the following circumstances (California Gov Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)): (1) the project does not comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete; or (2) the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. These State Housing Accountability Act provisions are restated in City Zoning Ordinance Section 18.77.073(d)(2), which provides that the Planning Director may not approve a housing development project unless the following two findings can be made: (A) The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. (B) Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. We have reviewed the project application, plans, and related submittals and note that there are several deviations from the City’s Zoning ordinance contained within the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), including the following: 1. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1) – the project does not contain upper story setbacks and does not comply with the daylight plane requirement 2. PAMC 18.24.080(b)(1)(C) – the project balconies do comply with the daylight plane requirement 3. PAMC 18.24.050(b)(2)(B) – the project does not contain the required articulation in certain portions of the building 4. PAMC 8.24.060(c)(7)(B) – parking takes up the entirety of the first two floors and does not contain the minimum 20-foot depth requirement for residential or commercial uses Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 118     6 The applicant is requesting that these deviations be allowed as waivers or concessions under the State Density Bonus Law. These requested deviations from the City’s upper story setbacks and daylight plane requirements would further contribute to the health and safety impacts described above. Accordingly, granting the requested deviations as concessions or waivers under State Density Bonus law would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov Code Section 65195(d)(1)) for the reasons stated above. Therefore, we urge the City to deny the upper story setback and daylight plane deviations as waivers or concessions, to determine the project to be inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and to require revisions to the project to bring it into consistency with the City’s daylight lane and upper story setback requirements. Even if these deviations are granted under State Density Bonus Law and the project is determined to be consistent with all applicable and objective standards in the PAMC in accordance with PAMC 18.77.073(d)(2)(A), the City would still have the authority under the PAMC and the Housing Accountability Act to require design changes to the project that either (1) do not reduce the proposed and allowed density; or (2) reduce the proposed and allowed density in order to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety. C. The City Therefore Can and Should Require Design Modifications to Reduce the Project’s Health and Safety Impacts The adverse health and safety impacts of this project summarized above could and should be avoided, or at least minimized, with certain design changes. These include reducing its height, stepping the project back from the property line adjacent to the Campus of Jewish Life, and reconfiguring the shape of the building from the proposed ‘S-shape’ to be more of an ‘E-shape’ to minimize shadows and direct lines-of-sight. While it may be possible to make these design changes without a reduction in density, to the extent a reduction in density results from these changes, we believe such a reduction would be warranted under the PAMC and the Housing Accountability Act to reduce the direct adverse impacts on public health and safety presented by the current proposed configuration. While we are still hopeful that the developer will propose modifications to reduce the adverse health and safety impacts of this project in its next resubmission, if the developer does not come forward voluntarily with such revisions, we respectfully urge the City to mandate them pursuant to its authority under the PAMC and the Housing Accountability Act. Respectfully, Camas J. Steinmetz Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 119     7 cc: Ed Lauing, Mayor Ed Shikado, City Manager Claire Raybould, Interim Manager and Project Planner Enclosures via dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4zuc0b2pmvf6rzegpesww/AFl2YmyEQFgd8mwQ2CWC vck?rlkey=9dpo572rvg5o2l8ztsavyk3pt&e=1&st=fgfbpxa9&dl=0 Attachment 1 – Letter to Developer with Attachments (July 12, 2024) Attachment 2 - Shadow and Visual Impact Study Attachment 3 - Letter from Dr. Jamie Zeitzer, PhD (June 11, 2025) Attachment 4 – Standards for Indoor Light Exposure Attachment 5 – ADL Press Release Attachment 6 – San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution Item 3. Attachment E - Public Comments     Packet Pg. 120     560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 | T +1.415.743.6900 | F +1.415.743.6910 -743-6990 -743-6979 Algiers | Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Bogotá | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | London | Los Angeles | Mexico City Miami | Monterrey | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland | Richmond June 8, 2026 - 5th Floor Re: Supplemental Submission re PLN24-00280 - 3997 Fabian Way Dear Claire: We represent Juno Realty Partners LLC (the “Applicant”) with regard to its application in partnership with Far Western Land and Investment Company for the development of a multifamily residential project at 3997 Fabian Way (the “Project Site”) in Palo Alto (the “City”), California. This letter accompanies supplemental materials that reflect minor modifications to the housing development project with application number PLN24-00280 (the “Project”), which is seeking a Major Architectural Review approval, State Density Bonus Law benefits, and a Lot Line Adjustment. The Project is proposed for processing pursuant to the City’s Streamlined Housing Development Project Review Process 1 and would consist of the development of 273 multifamily residential units (including 12 very low income units on site and in-lieu fee to satisfy the remaining requirement up to 18.24 units or 8%) in a single structure with a proposed Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 3.00 (the “Project”). The Project applies an approximately 20% FAR density bonus which is addressed in further detail below. The purposes of this letter are to: 1. Transmit the enclosed, updated materials that reflect minor Project changes to address City comments and community requests, and which the Applicant is now able to proceed with following the successful deconstruction of the structures on the Project Site; 2. Provide a modified Project Description as required by the City’s “Major/Minor Architectural Review (AR) Submittal Requirements Checklist;2 1 An alternative Builder’s Remedy project is currently tolled for processing and such tolling remains active. It is the Applicant’s intent to continue with this proposed Project, but we note the Applicant’s continued ability to return to the Builder’s Remedy proposal at a later time if necessary. 2 Available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/5/planning-amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/major-minor-ar-checklist-081324.pdf, dated August 2024. Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 121     Claire Raybould - Manager, Current Planning June 8, 2026 Page 2 #539649814_v1 3. Address the Applicant’s understanding of the extent to which the Project’s affordable housing will qualify for credit against the City’s inclusionary housing in-lieu fee for rental projects; 4. Provide documentation of the Project’s State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) requests which have also been slightly modified, while reserving the right to make certain other requests at a later time; 5. Reconfirm our understanding that the City is proceeding with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183; and 6. Memorialize our understanding about entitlement timing. Transmission of Revised/Supplemental Materials The City determined the Project’s application complete for processing on March 28, 2025, and the enclosed materials do not represent a new development application for review under Gov. Code Section 65943. Rather, they represent supplemental materials in response to City request to “clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement” required information pursuant to Gov. Code section 65944. It is the Applicant’s intent in providing these materials to be responsive to City and neighborhood requests, but in no way waive or forego any of its rights under applicable state housing laws, including but not limited to the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”), the State Density Bonus Law, SB 330, or the Permit Streamlining Act (the “PSA”). Project Description As required by the City’s Major Architectural Review checklist, this letter contains a Project Description for the Project, which is updated here due to the modifications to the Project in the enclosed materials. The Project involves demolition of two existing commercial buildings and a surface parking lot, and development of a new single structure of 7 stories containing 273 multifamily residential apartment rental units, including 12 on site very low income units. The Project also includes 323 parking spaces, 273 secured bike parking, and two open courtyards with distinct characters featuring several outdoor gathering spaces and a pool area. These features are for the use of the residents, as the development is 100% residential use. The building presents a contemporary interpretation of the traditional base-middle-top design. The residential floors feature a stucco exterior in varying colors, adding visual interest, and breaking up the overall massing. The lower two floors are clad in brick, echoing the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood. Multiple façade breaks and articulated elements further reduce the perceived scale, creating a more complementary design to the site context. Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 122     Claire Raybould - Manager, Current Planning June 8, 2026 Page 3 #539649814_v1 The landscape design for the Project draws inspiration from the nearby San Francisco Bay marshlands. The ground level, reflecting the tidal marsh zone, features a residential entry plaza at Fabian and East Charleston, with perimeter landscaping. The podium level, representing the mid- marsh, includes private gathering spaces, a pool, and passive and active landscape areas. The exterior lighting strategy creates a clear hierarchy, with brighter illumination at building entrances and lower levels elsewhere to aid evening wayfinding. Pathways are well-lit for resident and guest safety. Luminaires are seamlessly integrated into architectural and landscape elements for a clean, unified look, with low mounting heights to enhance visual comfort and minimize light trespass. Key features like site furnishings, mural panels, and plantings are accented to add visual interest at night. Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Credit The Project is providing 8% of its base density units at the very low income level - this includes 12 units on site and the remainder paid via in-lieu fee. It is our understanding that this will fully satisfy the City’s inclusionary housing requirement and ability to propose up to 3.00 FAR per the GM/ROLM Focus Area standards, and we seek the City’s confirmation of this understanding. State Density Bonus Law Documentation The Applicant is applying under the SDBL. The Project Site is located in the GM/ROLM Focus Area, where the base maximum FAR is 2.5.3 The Project includes 5% very low income units on site as applied to its base density of 228 units (12 very low income units), and is therefore entitled to a 20% SDBL density bonus 4 in FAR (up to 3.0 FAR) to accommodate the Project’s 273 units. The Applicant has calculated its base density and permitted 3.0 FAR density bonus consistent with City staff’s direction, and we would appreciate the City’s clarification if it disagrees with the calculation as updated herein due to the minor Project modifications proposed in the enclosed materials. In addition to its density bonus, the Applicant is entitled to one incentive/concession,5 any required waivers,6 and SDBL parking maximums.7 The Applicant has not yet identified a 3 Palo Alto Zoning Code Section 18.14.020, Table 2. 4 Govt. Code Section 65915(f)(2). 5 Govt. Code Section 65915(d)(2)(A). 6 Govt. Code Section 65915(e)(1). 7 Recent appellate decisions have reinforced the strong deference owed to applicants under the SDBL. In Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022), the court emphasized that local agencies may not impose additional conditions or heightened scrutiny beyond what the statute permits, and that the applicant's entitlement to concessions is essentially mandatory once statutory criteria are met. Similarly, in Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021), the court confirmed that a city's findings to deny a request must be based on concrete, project-specific evidence of harm—not generalized policy preferences or speculative concerns—and that the SDBL is to be interpreted liberally in favor of producing affordable housing. Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 123     Claire Raybould - Manager, Current Planning June 8, 2026 Page 4 #539649814_v1 concession/incentive but reserves the right to do so at a later time. The Applicant has identified the following waivers, and continues to reserve the right to request additional waivers if needed: • Waiver of 18.24.020 – Maximum Height of 60 Feet o The Project does not comply with the maximum height requirement., as it proposes a height of 95’-5”. Complying with this requirement would reduce the Project, as designed, by 155 units and its square footage, thereby “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL, qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. See the enclosed exhibit titled “Building Height – Proposed 95’-5” Heights Exceeds 60’ Max Height.” • Waiver of 18.24.020 – Maximum Lot Coverage of 70% o The Project does not comply with the maximum lot coverage requirement, as it proposes a lot coverage of 78%. Complying with this requirement would reduce the Project, as designed, by 49 units and its square footage, thereby “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL, qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. See the enclosed exhibit titled “Lot Coverage – Proposed 78% Exceeds 70% Max by 8%.” • Waiver of 18.24.030(b)(4)(a) – Site Access o The Project does not comply with this requirement, as it proposes a loading dock along the Fabian Way frontage. By providing the loading dock along this frontage it allows for easier access to the building lobby entrance and minimizes its appearance since this building façade is longer than the Charleston frontage. Complying with this requirement would reduce the Project, as designed, by reducing units and its square footage, thereby “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL, qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 124     Claire Raybould - Manager, Current Planning June 8, 2026 Page 5 #539649814_v1 • Waiver of 18.24.050(b)(1)(A) – Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes o The Project does not contain upper floor step backs. Complying with these requirements would reduce the Project, as designed, by 11 residential units and its square footage, thereby “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL, qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. See the enclosed exhibit titled “Building Massing – Upper Floor Step Backs.” • Waiver of 18.24.050(b)(1)(C) – Upper Floor Step Backs and Daylight Planes o The Project does not comply with the daylight plane. Complying with these requirements would reduce the Project, as designed), by 30 units and its square footage, thereby “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL, qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. See the enclosed exhibit labeled “Building Massing – Daylight Plane.” • Waiver of 18.24.050(b)(2)(B) – Façade breaks o A small portion of the Project does not include the required façade breaks. Complying with the façade breaks would significantly impact the Project’s design as well as the size and marketability of the Project’s residential units, and thereby reduce its square footage and unit count by 15 units, “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL and qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. Waiver of 18.24.060(c)(7)(B) – Above Ground Structured Parking. See the enclosed exhibit titled “Building Massing – Façade Breaks.” • Waiver of 18.24.060(c)(7)(B) – Above Ground Structured Parking o The Project’s garage takes up the entirety of those floors, rather than containing any commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Complying Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 125     Claire Raybould - Manager, Current Planning June 8, 2026 Page 6 #539649814_v1 with the requirement to include habitable uses would shrink the Project’s parking area, reducing its number of parking spaces and therefore its number of units by 38 units. This would have the effect of “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL and qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. See the enclosed exhibit titled “Façade Design – Structural Parking Facing Row.” • Waiver of 18.52.040(d) – Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements o The Project does not comply with this requirement, as it proposes a passenger loading zone along the Fabian Way frontage. The South Palo Alto Bikeways Project for Fabian Way requires that one of traffic be removed and that a bikeway be constructed directly adjacent to the project frontage curb and sidewalk. As such, it creates an area where on-street parking would be provided. The project proposed that the passenger loading zone be located in this area for easier access to the building lobby entrance. Complying with this requirement would reduce the Project, as designed, by reducing units and its square footage, thereby “physically precluding the construction of a development” at “the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under” the SDBL, qualifying the Project for waiver of this requirement. In this case where the City uses FAR as its primary measure of permitted density, the Project qualifies for a waiver because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude the Project from being built with its permitted 20% density bonus in FAR. With regard to parking, the Project complies with the City’s parking standards and accordingly does not request the application of SDBL ratios. The Project’s California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Review – 15183 Checklist We understand that pursuant to City’s letter dated May 29, 2025 titled “15183 Checklist/Initial Study and Notice of Determination,” the City is proceeding with the preparation of a CEQA consistency checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, using the services of David J. Powers & Associates. The Project as modified in the enclosed materials continues to qualify for use of a 15183 checklist. The Project as modified in the enclosed materials has been designed to comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, including the GM/ROLM Focus Area Plan standards. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 specifies that “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not required additional environmental review, except Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 126     Claire Raybould - Manager, Current Planning June 8, 2026 Page 7 #539649814_v1 as nay be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.”8 The Project is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code except to the extent permitted by the State Density Bonus Law, and is therefore eligible under both CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d)(1)(B) and (C). Entitlement Timing It is our understanding that in consideration of the lengthy timeline for remediation, the City and Applicant have agreed to the following condition of approval: This approval shall expire two years from the original effective date, if construction has not commenced within that time, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090, provided further that time to commence construction shall be tolled during any period of active or on-going efforts to remediate hazardous conditions (which remediation shall include efforts to obtain applicable agency clearance to commence construction activities) on the site or 10 years, whichever is shorter. Applicant shall provide updates demonstrating its efforts to City on a periodic basis, but no less frequently than annually, beginning with two years from the effective date of the approval. We appreciate the City’s continued attention to this Project. Sincerely, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Genna Yarkin Chelsea Maclean 8 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a). Item 3. Attachment F - Project Description     Packet Pg. 127     Attachment F Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3997 Fabian Way” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage, you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage 3997 Fabian Way – Palo Alto, CA Item 3. Attachment G - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 128     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 20, 2026 Report #: 2608-6625 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2026 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of July 16, 2026 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 129     Page 1 of 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Council Chamber & Zoom 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, Board Member Yingxi Chen Absent: None. Chair Adcock called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera took roll and declared a quorum. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS None. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, delivered the Director’s Report. A preliminary architectural review was received for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s new Skyline field office. The ARB will likely have 1 item on August 6, a hearing on a small sign exception proposal. Ms. Raybould requested notification of any planned absences over the next few months to ensure the ARB has a quorum. Board Member Hirsch asked for the location of the new Open Space project. Ms. Raybould responded that it was at 1185 Skyline Boulevard, which she understood to be a regional office for rangers. STUDY SESSION 2. Study Session on Process and Design Standards for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. CEQA Status: Not a Project. Chair Adcock read the staff recommendation to the board, which included a request for the ARB to provide feedback on the review criteria and process to support more efficient and consistent review of future wireless applications, using the previous objective standards as a foundation for this discussion. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 130     Page 2 of 23 Associate Planner Nishita Kandikuppa delivered a presentation to the board. In May 2025, the Council moved to repeal the Wireless Objective Design Standards. Tier 2 and Tier 3 right-of-way projects included modifying or installing wireless facilities on an existing structure that substantially changed the dimensions of the support structure; installing new wireless equipment on poles or buildings; and siting new wireless communication facilities (WCF), such as a new monopole or monopine. On May 19, 2025, the City Council’s motion included the following next steps: Directing the ARB to develop a new set of objective or subjective standards for reviewing wireless projects in the public right-of-way; referring projects to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) as needed; and directing staff to engage a consultant to study the technical feasibility of placing cell towers at a 100-foot setback from residential structures and a 1,500-foot setback from schools and daycare facilities. Due to staffing constraints and housing priorities, the study session was postponed to this date. Staff had not yet engaged a consultant to study setbacks; however, the data team prepared a map showing 100-foot buffers around existing utility or streetlight poles in the Downtown North neighborhood. Most of those structures were zoned and used for residential purposes, making it challenging for staff to impose a 100-foot setback for the installation of new wireless equipment. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 131     Page 3 of 23 whether a less visually prominent location on the same support structure or within the same corridor is feasible without resulting in an effective prohibition under federal law. Focus comments on previously published design-based considerations, including scale, visibility, finish, visual clutter, compatibility, concealment, landscaping, sidewalk function, and the relationship to adjacent properties. State whether staff’s analysis of the ARB findings is sufficient; if not, explain the basis for that conclusion. ARB discussion topics include: ARB review scope, findings, and decision framework; equipment design, concealment, and pole integration; streetscape compatibility and sensitive contexts; public realm function and cumulative effects; and standards, application materials, and process improvements. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 132     Page 4 of 23 Gail Karish, Partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP, served as special counsel to the City on wireless telecommunications matters. Ms. Karish, speaking via Zoom, explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initially issued an order regulating various aspects of small wireless facilities, including aesthetics, and that one criterion Cities had to meet was that the standards be objective. Best Best & Krieger LLP and other firms represented coalitions of local governments and local government associations that challenged that FCC order in court, and the Ninth Circuit partially overturned it. The Ninth Circuit held that Cities cannot be required to have only objective standards; however, aesthetic standards must be reasonable and published in advance. The portion of the FCC order requiring standards to be objective was removed in 2020. The City considered revising its objective standards in light of that change in the law. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 133     Page 5 of 23 Ms. Armer expressed staff support for a recommendation that only Tier 3 come before the ARB; however, Council would make the final decision on the process. Ms. Armer thought the applicant indicated whether it was Tier 2 or Tier 3 but staff made the determination based on the applicant’s provided information. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 134     Page 6 of 23 on the pole and cannot be undergrounded because that is how the equipment is designed by the manufacturer. The associated wiring equipment can be undergrounded. Ms. Kandikuppa offered to ask Utilities and the wireless companies which equipment can be undergrounded and which must be mounted on the pole. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 135     Page 7 of 23 Board Member Jojarth inquired whether there was a regulation for other types of telecommunication- related services. For example, AT&T provides fiber and wireless, so instead of having 2 smaller aboveground boxes, they may want to combine them into 1 larger box. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 136     Page 8 of 23 equipment. Staff has seen small cell facilities mounted on utility poles or streetlight poles at about 25 to 30 feet aboveground or higher, depending on the location. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 137     Page 9 of 23 come up in recent projects but Ms. Kandikuppa confirmed that the landscape screening standards were being followed. There was a requirement to show street trees and other foliage on the site plan. If any trees had to be removed, additional trees needed to be planted. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 138     Page 10 of 23 zoning district. Chair Adcock asked whether the upcoming proposals were for the downtown area shown on the map on the slide. PUBLIC COMMENTS Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 139     Page 11 of 23 the electrical lines and quadrants for climbing space, PG&E safety standards, mounting heights, and other restrictions. A vertically stacked shroud and a vertically stacked partial shroud were shown. There were 2 or 3 radios, depending on the capacity needed to fill the service gap. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 140     Page 12 of 23 underground. That site is going into construction any day now. For future applications, since they know it is okay with Palo Alto Utilities, the disconnect will be in an underground vault, a sub box. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 141     Page 13 of 23 for a wood pole, a streetlight, and a metal pole, and a preapproved diameter for the cylinder on the top or an extension in-line with the existing pole. Carriers can choose a preapproved design that is within the maximum dimensions and paint it in go-away green or blend-in brown, depending on the pole or the context. Vice Chair Rosenberg believed that if the ARB was seeing the same repetitive design, it was not worth the time or effort for an ARB hearing. Existing designs in line with the pole, not extending beyond the pole, could be a preapproved method. Vice Chair Rosenberg did not see a need for the ARB to review applications in rural areas where not many people will see the equipment, so maybe the ARB could provide more flexibility with size, dimensions, or aesthetics, for example, up on Page Mill toward Foothill Park. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 142     Page 14 of 23 Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed that placing antennas on an existing pole was a very different scenario from a big box sitting next to a pole, which could impede the public right-of-way and sidewalk and would require further discussion. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 143     Page 15 of 23 Chair Adcock suggested keeping the underground option but not as the preferred option, because it may be possible in remote areas, whereas it is not feasible in the congestion of utilities in downtown. Having underground vaults large enough to allow people to go inside is unlikely to be the route most providers will use but it is not infeasible everywhere, raising the question of whether the board was concerned about the radio equipment being in an underground vault in remote areas. Chair Adcock wanted to insist on a guideline stating that unless it is completely technically infeasible, the switches must be underground and not in a small box next to the pole, especially in pedestrian areas. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 144     Page 16 of 23 them at the August 6 meeting, or email staff and report on them at the next meeting. Chair Adcock requested volunteers for the ad hoc committee or offered to assign board members. Chair Adcock asked staff to provide the drawings submitted for projects to serve as a baseline for dimensions. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 145     Page 17 of 23 Ms. Armer felt that staff could move forward on this quickly if staff were provided with those minor suggested changes, which staff would then attach to a brief memo referencing the information provided for today’s hearing, and it could be a discussion item on August 6. ACTION ITEMS Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 146     Page 18 of 23 additional renderings of projects. Council’s anticipated work plan review was in September or October 2026. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 147     Page 19 of 23 they could submit a preliminary submission. Chair Adcock suggested adding to the Purpose Statement that the ARB follows and then citing the appropriate Municipal Code chapters. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 148     Page 20 of 23 The issue was that the applicant would take 1 person’s opinion as guidance but when the project came to the ARB, the rest of the board voted no. A formal public ARB meeting results in 1 decision. The ARB could review the plan set early and ensure the packet is complete and includes the necessary drawings. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 149     Page 21 of 23 project or effort; it was a catchall. The ARB could leave it as high priority or move it to low priority. Regardless, if something comes up, staff would bring it to the ARB at the appropriate time. Chair Adcock suggested removing it or placing it under low priority. Board Member Hirsch felt the highest-priority areas were El Camino, San Antonio Road, and industrial site redevelopment. Ms. Armer explained that staff tried to identify in the work plan some of the efforts they knew would come to the ARB in the next year. “Design guidance for major growth areas” was removed from the High Priority list, while recognizing the desire to have clear guidelines for any area of development. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 150     Page 22 of 23 Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired when the last ARB design review awards were held, as they typically occur once every 5 years and would be included in the work plan for that year. Staff said the last ARB design review awards were in 2025. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg moved, seconded by Board Member Chen, to approve the work plan as noted and revised today during the ARB meeting. VOTE: Motion passed 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg, to accept the draft Architectural Review Board meeting minutes of May 21, 2026. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 151     Page 23 of 23 VOTE: Motion passed 5-0. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg moved, seconded by Chair Adcock, to approve the draft Architectural Review Board meeting minutes of May 21, 2026, as written. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0-1. Board Member Chen abstained. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT ADJOURNMENT Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of July 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 152