The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board on Dec. 4 reviewed a preliminary design for a proposed six‑story parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue, a city‑owned site currently used as surface Lot D. Staff and the applicant asked the board to provide informal, site‑specific comments on massing, pedestrian orientation and materials; no formal action or vote was requested.

Associate planner Christina Dobkaviches told the board the garage proposal would provide 266 parking stalls and reserve space for future affordable housing. She said the council previously selected an Option 1a concept and authorized modifications under Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.28.060(e) to allow departures from standard development controls when a primary use is a parking garage. "Both the parking garage and the future affordable housing on the site are...permitted uses," Dobkaviches said, and described pedestrian improvements, widened sidewalks and a temporary public plaza east of the garage.

Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects, representing the Watri design team, presented three façade alternatives that use textured concrete, perforated metal screening and metal fins to reduce perceived bulk and hide parked cars. Hayes described a proposed 4,500‑square‑foot temporary open space on the corner intended to activate the site until housing is built and said the project includes rooftop photovoltaic infrastructure and long‑term bicycle storage.

In public comment, longtime downtown advocate Herb Borock urged the city to treat related parking proposals as a single project under California environmental review rules. "They need to be evaluated for environmental reasons together as a single project," Borock said, arguing cumulative impacts should be considered in the administrative record. Chief Assistant City Attorney Kyle Arellano responded that the city certified an environmental impact report for the original Lot D project in 2019 and that the current contract includes preparation of an addendum to that EIR.

Board members focused their feedback on three main areas: the Hamilton Avenue façade treatment, the Waverly Street elevation that could later adjoin housing, and circulation/traffic at the Hamilton egress. Several members favored the second façade option for its simplified composition while others favored more openness on the Waverly elevation to improve daylight and a safer pedestrian feel. Concerns included the driveway location on Hamilton, potential queuing at the street signal and how the garage would interface with future housing on the parcel.

Members also asked for additional detail on materials and constructability. Hayes said the team will provide material samples and study the feasibility of textured board‑form concrete and selected form liners. Staff and applicants indicated they would further coordinate with traffic engineering and the public‑works team on the driveway location and vehicle circulation.

The board offered design guidance but did not take formal action. Staff noted follow‑up items that could include material samples, additional traffic analysis if warranted, and more refined options for the temporary plaza so it could function longer if housing is delayed.

What happens next: because this was a preliminary review, the applicant will return with more detailed materials and staff will continue to coordinate design and technical follow‑ups, including an addendum to the previously certified EIR as described by the city attorney.