ARB provides detailed design feedback on proposed 145‑unit townhome project near Baylands; no formal recommendation

The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board on Thursday gave detailed design and policy feedback on a proposed 145‑unit, for‑sale townhome development on an 11‑acre site near the Baylands, but did not take a formal vote because the item was presented as a study session.

City staff described the project as a site‑and‑design and conditional‑use application to demolish four existing commercial buildings and build 65 three‑story structures containing a total of 145 townhomes, with a mix of 75 four‑bedroom units and 70 three‑bedroom units. The applicant, Straud Investment Group, said 19 units (13%) would be deed‑restricted to households at or below 60% of area median income. Staff noted the project has been processed under state rules (SB 330) and that the developer invoked a ‘‘builder’s remedy’’ pathway under California Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5) (Assembly Bill 1893), which restricts discretionary denials and limits review to objective standards.

Michael Cohen, founding partner of Straud Investment Group, described the proposal as a family‑oriented neighborhood with two‑car garages for all units, roof decks and private yards for many homes. "We’ve elected to develop 145 single‑family for‑sale townhomes in large part because there is a massive undersupply of homes for first‑time homebuyers in Palo Alto," Cohen said.

Design team members presented an overall plan showing a central green, two pocket parks, a robust native planting palette and pedestrian pathways intended to knit the site together. The landscape architect said the design would raise the site to get it out of the floodplain, remove most trees on the property and add a larger replanting program; the team estimated it would increase native tree cover to roughly 51% of the new planting palette compared with 18% existing.

Board members asked detailed questions about several items and requested additional studies and clarifications before the project returns: more exact grading and retaining‑wall sections (staff and the applicant said parts of the site must be raised about three feet to meet floodplain requirements, producing perimeter retaining walls that may be as tall as six feet in some locations); detailed shop drawings and wiring/penetration details for any rooftop or architectural elements; clearer diagrams of which individual units are deed‑restricted BMR units (staff said the current plan shows BMR units concentrated in certain attached townhome buildings, and the ARB asked staff and the applicant to review distribution across unit types); and better visualizations and material studies (multiple board members raised concerns about the high‑contrast dark and bright white color palettes shown in the material boards and renderings and asked the team to test more muted, Baylands‑sensitive tones and different siding/trim details).

Several board members encouraged the applicant to explore a third housing prototype beyond the current “attached townhome / detached townhome” split. Board members suggested options to increase housing type variety — for example, duplexes or a limited stacked‑flat or low‑rise multifamily prototype in place of some of the attached blocks — so the project can serve a broader range of future residents, including smaller households and older adults. The applicant said the team has considered alternatives but told the board that mixed‑use or below‑grade parking options are constrained on this floodplain site and that multifamily construction on this parcel would present feasibility challenges; the developer agreed to study duplex/stacked‑flat alternatives and return with results.

Public comment included a statement from resident Herb Gorock who challenged whether the application was complete and asked the board to confirm compliance with public‑notice and application completeness requirements: "I don't believe that this project is properly before you," Gorock said. Staff responded that the hearing was an early study session intended to collect ARB feedback and that CEQA review and outstanding plan revisions are ongoing.

Technical details captured in the hearing record: the project proposes a floor‑area ratio around 0.97:1 and about 13.2 dwelling units per acre (the RM‑20 district allows 11–20 units per acre); the proposal provides roughly 290 garage parking spaces (two per unit), about 70 of which are tandem, plus approximately 43 on‑street guest spaces; the rooftop terraces and private open space approach were described as meeting city private‑open‑space requirements; and the applicant plans on subsurface stormwater treatment beneath the central courtyard so that usable open space sits above treatment infrastructure.

Next steps and staff schedule: staff told the board they expect to complete environmental review (initial study and checklist), bring a recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission in December (after CEQA steps), and return the project to ARB for a formal recommendation in mid‑January before a City Council hearing tentatively scheduled for March.

Why it matters: the project proposes a large, for‑sale residential neighborhood on land currently occupied by offices near a sensitive Baylands ecosystem and raises questions about design, floodplain engineering, affordable‑housing distribution and the balance between for‑sale family housing and additional multifamily choices.

The ARB’s comments were technical and design‑forward rather than policy rejections: the board asked for more detailed engineering, refined material palettes and considered alternatives to the submitted typologies — items staff and the applicant agreed to study and return with.