HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-19 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, December 19, 2024
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. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o n
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. Commissioner 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
Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an
amount of time determined by the Chair. 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@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the
City’s website. 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@CityofPaloAlto.org 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
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
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.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real
Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement
Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment:
On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (Continued from December 5,
2024)
3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built
Projects (2020‐2024)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2024
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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@cityofpaloalto.org.
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@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, December 19, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction 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 onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 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 strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.
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
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
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.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real
Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement
Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment:
On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (Continued from December 5,
2024)
3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built
Projects (2020‐2024)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2024
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND
AGENDAS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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@cityofpaloalto.org.
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@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or
accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or
service.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, December 19, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e m e e t i n g w i l l b e b r o a d c a s t o n C a b l e T V C h a n n e l 2 6 , l i v e o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction 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 onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 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 strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.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 notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda ItemsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino RealFocus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to ImplementProgram 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment:On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to theComprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (Continued from December 5,2024)3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing BuiltProjects (2020‐2024)APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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@cityofpaloalto.org.
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@cityofpaloalto.org. 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: December 19, 2024
Report #: 2411-3820
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 Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) 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
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 4
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS
The following items are tentative and subject to change:
MEETING DATE TOPICS
January 16, 2024 •70 Encina: Rezone and Multifamily Residential (2nd Hearing)
RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS
No new major ARB projects have been submitted.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects
AUTHOR and ARB LIAISON1
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails maybe sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
Architectural Review Board
2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2024 Meeting Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
2/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/29/2024 9:00 AM Hybrid Retreat
3/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
3/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
4/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
4/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/2/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/16/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg
6/6/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen
6/20/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Rosenberg
7/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
7/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled
8/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/3/2024 10:00 AM Hybrid Special
10/17/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2024 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair
January February March April May June
Hirsch, Adcock 4/4 Baltay,
Hisrch 6/6
July August September October November December
Hirsch, Adcock 8/15
Item 1
Attachment A: 2024 &
2025 Meeting Schedule &
Assignments
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
2024 & 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2025 Meeting Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled
1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock
3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular
Item 1
Attachment A: 2024 &
2025 Meeting Schedule &
Assignments
Packet Pg. 7
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Pending ARB Projects
The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye
at bit.ly/PABuildingEye.
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review
9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250
Hamilton
Ave
Bridge Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge
over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not
obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also
include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The
SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19.
Zoning District: PF.
On-hold for redesign
Major
Architectural
Review
Zone Change
12/21/21 21PLN-00341
24PLN-00239
660
University
680
University
Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish
Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story
Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-
Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade
Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential
(42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-
Bedroom).
NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow
SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story
mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non-
residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF),
multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade
parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20%
on-site BMR.
ARB 1st formal
12/1/22, ARB
recommended
approval 4/22;
Applicant is revising
project plans
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending Projects
Packet Pg. 8
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review
6/8/23 23PLN-00136
23PLN-00277
(Map)
23PLN-00003
and -00195 –
(SB 330)
24PLN-00230
(Code
compliant
version)
24PLN-00231
(Map)
3150 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
380 units
Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380-
unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below
Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot
apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that
extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to
ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance
with the State Density Bonus laws.
Focus Area
Compliant
Application Filed
8/7/24; NOI Sent
9/7/24. Pending
Resubmittal.
Tentative ARB
11/7/2024.
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch) Reported out
5/4 on SB 330
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch) Reported out
on 8/17
ARB 11/7 Rec.
approval
Major
Architectural
Review
7/19/23 23PLN-00181 824 San
Antonio
Road
Housing –
16 senior
units, 12
convalescent
units
Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of
an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4-
Story private residential senior living facility, including 15
independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1
owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors,
underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Zoning
District: CS (Commercial Services).
12/21/23 ARB
hearing; Revised
Plans resubmitted
9/25/24;
ARB 11/21 Rec.
approval
PC
Amendment
8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El
Camino
Way
Commercial
16
convalescent
units
Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New
Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility
consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional
Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms.
Zoning District: PC-5116
Community Meeting
in October. 2/28/24
and 6/12/24 PTC
hearing, 7/18/24 ARB
hearing, ARB
10/17/24, PTC &
Council hearings
TBD.
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Chen) reported out
6/1
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending Projects
Packet Pg. 9
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review
1/10/24 24PLN-00012 3265 El
Camino
Real
Housing Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home
Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable
multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and
ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS.
NOI Sent 1/10/24.
PTC 4/10/24; ARB
4/22/24; Applicant
submitted revised
project 9/13/24 with
55 Units; Tentative
ARB 11/21/24.
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Thompson) reported
out 8/17 on
prescreening
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch)
ARB 11/21 Rec.
approval
Major
Architectural
Review
3/6/24 24PLN-00064 640
Waverley
Mixed-Use Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to
allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial
and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a
preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment:
Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P).
NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB
6/6/24. Pending
Resubmittal;
Preparing 15183
Exemption. Tentative
ARB January 2025.
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch)
Minor
Architectural
Review
3/7/24 24PLN-00066 180 El
Camino
Real
Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades
for a restaurant tenant (Delarosa); to include new exterior pergola
over seating and planters in existing location. New metal awnings
over main entrance to replace existing acrylic and new metal
awning at rear to replace existing fabric awning. New signage and
replace existing light fixtures. Environmental Assessment:
Pending. Zoning District: (CC)
NOI Sent 4/10.
Pending Resubmittal.
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/02/24 24PLN-00100
24PLN-00223
(Map)
156
California
Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with
California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy"
which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California
Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is
situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29
ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the
reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing
parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use
Multi Family Development. This project consists of three
NOI Sent 5/2/2024;
60-day Formal
Comments sent 6/1;
Resubmitted,
Request for
Supplemental Info
Sent 7/11; Pending
Resubmittal.
SB 330 Pre-app
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending Projects
Packet Pg. 10
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of
TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000
square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1)
17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed
and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction.
Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P)
and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial)
submitted 11/21/24
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Adcock)
Zone Change 03/28/24 24PLN-00095 70 Encina Housing –
10 Units
Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow
construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to
include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a
common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian
access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface
parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District:
CC, (Community Commercial).
NOI Sent 4/28/2024.
PTC 9/11/24, Plans
Pending Resubmittal,
Tentative 1st ARB
November 2024.
ARB prelim 12/7
Ad Hoc (Hirsch,
Adcock)
ARB 11/07 Continued
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San
Antonio
Housing –
198 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE
65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition
of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-
story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental
apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental:
Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD.
NOI Sent 5/23/2024.
Tentative ARB
December 2024.
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Chen)
Streamlined
Housing
Development
Review
5/28/24 24PLN-00152
24PLN-00023
(Prelim)
4335-
4345 El
Camino
Housing –
29 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing
development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El
Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial
building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building
(4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached
residential townhome-style condominiums with associated
utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service
Commercial).
NOI Sent 6/27/2024.
ARB 9/19/24.
Pending Resubmittal
of Plans.
Ad Hoc (Hirsch,
Baltay) reviewed
prelim
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/24 24PLN-00161
24PLN-00048
(SB 330)
3781 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
177 units
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple
existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737
& 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388
Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family
residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of
above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are
NOI Sent 7/10/2024.
Resubmittal on
11/22/24
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending Projects
Packet Pg. 11
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN
& RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048)
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/24 24PLN-00162
24PLN-00047
(SB 330)
3606 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
335 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple
existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at
3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall
Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential
housing development project with 335 units. The new residential
building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground
floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real
and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending.
Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40
NOI Sent 8/1/2024.
Resubmittal on
11/22/24
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
7/17/24 24PLN-00184
24PLN-00232
(Map)
3400 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
231 units
&
Hotel –
92 rooms
Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to
demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at
3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and
replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential
towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story
townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three
existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to
residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various
(SB330)
NOI Sent 8/16/2024
and 9/12/2024;
Pending Resubmittal.
Minor
Architectural
Review &
Conditional
Use Permit
9/24/24 24PLN-00263 3950
Fabian
Way
Private
Education
Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior
modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story
commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately
4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to
private education to accommodate Girls Middle school.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM.
NOI Sent
10/24/2024.
Early ARB 11/21
Streamlined
Housing
Development
Review
10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997
Fabian
Way
Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to
deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 &
3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to
construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295
multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low-
income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike
parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering
spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed
to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development
Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus
Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General
__
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending Projects
Packet Pg. 12
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density
Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111)
Master Sign
Program
11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340
Portage
Av
Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID
Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall
signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy
signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium
Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental
Assessment: Pending.
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending Projects
Packet Pg. 13
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 2
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: December 19, 2024
Report #: 2412-3859
TITLE
Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus
Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E
of the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: On April 15, 2024,
Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (Continued from December 5, 2024)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a study session to review a
summary of issues and staff recommendations and provide feedback on potential changes to
the geographic boundaries of, and development standards set forth in, the El Camino Real
Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), with the
objective of supporting housing production and affordability.
BACKGROUND
This study session item was originally scheduled for December 5, 2024 ARB meeting with a full
staff report published on the City’s website.1 Please refer to the December 5, 2024 staff report
for information on this project. Due to a lack of time for full consideration, the item was
continued to a date certain, December 19, 2024. While no staff presentation or discussion
occurred at the December 5, 2024 meeting, two speaker provided public comments:
•Alex Giavannotto, property owner of 3606 El Camino Real and 3781 El Camino Real,
supported the expansion of the El Camino Focus Area to the aforementioned properties,
expressed an interest in aligning pending development applications with those
development standards, and appreciation for considerations of project financial
feasibility.
1 December 5, 2024, ARB Meeting, Agenda Item 3:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13940
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2
•Amie Ashton, representing Palo Alto Forward, expressed support for the expansion of
the Focus Area and modifications to height transitions and stepbacks to reduce
development constraints.
These comments, along with any additional public comment received at the December 19, 2024
ARB meeting should be considered as part of deliberations on this item. Meeting minutes of the
December 5, 2024 meeting are not yet available. However, the video for the meeting is
viewable online.2
Report Author & Contact Information
Jean Eisberg, Consultant
jean@lexingtonplanning.com
ARB Liaison & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org
2 December 5, 2024, ARB Meeting Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph85qidhL8I&t=2s
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 3
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: December 19, 2024
Report #: 2412-3850
TITLE
Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects
(2020-2024)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Discuss the ARB Design Awards, including: timeline; awards categories; evaluation
criteria and process; and how the public can be involved in the process.
2. Review the attached list of 79 projects reviewed by the ARB since 2020.
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive Plan Program L6.1.1
The ARB Design Awards program implements the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program
L6.1.1, which states, "Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for
projects of architectural merit that contribute positively to the community."
ARB Bylaws
The ARB Bylaws were amended in 2005 to add that the Design Awards program would occur
every five years. The ARB Bylaws Article 8, Design Awards, sets forth the following:
•Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning
in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB and
completed since the last awards were made.
•Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board.
•Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the
presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto
issue an appropriate proclamation.
Purpose
The ARB Design Awards were established to express appreciation for architects’ efforts to help
create and maintain Palo Alto's unique visual character through their creative and responsive
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 3
designs of public and private spaces, which contribute to the well-being and healthy
environment of our city.
Previous ARB Awards
•1998: five awards went to five projects built prior to mid-1997.
•2005: five awards went to five projects constructed between mid-1997 and mid-2004.
The eligible projects list was comprised of 70 major projects constructed prior to 2005;
with criteria as follows: (1) Innovative, creative, and authentic; (2) Enriches the quality
of the built environment in Palo Alto; (3) Respectful of its context and the environment;
(4) Well-built, well-detailed, and durable.
•2010: ten awards went to ten projects from an eligible list of over 100 projects
constructed prior to 2010. The ARB determined the number of awards could be
increased to ten, to include ‘honorable mention’ awards for a variety of projects.
•2015: five awards went to five projects from an eligible list of over 34 projects
constructed prior to 2015. The awards were presented in November 2015 and followed
the same criteria set in 2005. The five main projects included the Hoover Pavilion on
Quarry Road, Rinconada Library, Apple Store on University Ave, and Magical Bridge
Playground; the Mitchell Park Library also received a special sustainability award, and
Paris Baguette Remodel on University received a small project category award.
•2020 (2022): Eight awards went to eight projects from an eligible list of 100 projects
constructed prior 2020. The eight projects included the Junior Museum and Zoo on
Middlefield (Public Project), Fire Station #3 replacement project (Public Project), 3223
Hanover Street (Office/R&D), 4175 Manuela Avenue (Religious Assembly), 375
University Avenue (Retail Façade Renovation), 611 Cowper Street (New Construction),
Children’s Hospital at 701 Welch Road (Honorable Mention), Residence at 430 Forest
Ave – (Honorable Mention).
DISCUSSION
Timing of Awards
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) celebrates National Architecture Week during the
week of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, April 13th. While not formally educated as an architect,
Jefferson is the only president to be recognized for his architectural contributions. The ARB
Design Awards were previously presented in April or May in 2000, 2005, and 2010. The 2015
ARB Design Awards were presented in October. Given the shelter in place orders related to the
COVID-19 pandemic, staff postponed the 2020 ARB Design Awards to 2021, with the awards
ultimately presented in September 2022.
Award Categories
The 2020 ARB Design Awards included the following seven categories, with two awards going to
public projects: (1) Public Project, (2) Office/R&D, (3) Religious Assembly, (4) Retail Façade
Renovation, (5) New Construction, (6) Honorable Mention–Hospital, and (7) Honorable
Mention–Residential.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 17
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 3
The ARB could also consider modeling its award categories with those of the AIA Silicon Valley
Chapter’s 2025 Design Awards1 scheduled for May 8, 2025. This local program recognizes seven
main categories, as follows: (1) Architecture, (2) Residential Architecture, (3) Interior
Architecture, (4) Urban Design / Master Plan, (5) Small Project / Big Impact, (6) Unbuilt /
Research / Competition, and (7) Social Responsibility. Additionally, there are four special
awards, as follows: (1) Birge Clark Award, (2) Firm Award, (3) 25 Year Award, and (4) People's
Choice Award.
Evaluation Criteria and Process
In preparation for the 2025 Design Awards, staff has compiled a list of addresses for the ARB’s
consideration (Attachment A). This list includes ARB-recommended and Director- or Council-
approved projects from 2020 and the projects that were still under construction at the time of
the last awards. Prior to the next ARB discussion of the awards, any incomplete construction
addresses will be moved to a list of projects eligible for the ARB Design Awards in 2030, as was
done in 2022 with the 2020 awards.
To effectively evaluate potential projects, the board should establish a clear process, including
but not limited to:
1. Divide the Project List: The five board members can each choose a set number of
properties from the list, conduct site or “drive by” visits before the next time this item
is scheduled for an ARB retreat/meeting. Members should take photos to help staff
compile a presentation for discussion in early 2025.
2. Define Award Categories: The ARB should decide on award categories (e.g., Best
Design, Public Project, Office/R&D, etc.) to guide the evaluation process.
3. Set Number of Awards: The ARB should determine how many properties will be
awarded. This could involve setting a specific limit for each category or establishing a
total number of awards that should not be exceeded across all categories.
NEXT STEPS
Based on the result of the ARB hearing, staff will finalize the list of qualifying projects based on
completion prior to the end of 2024. The finalized project list will then be provided to the ARB
based on the process determined for this year’s awards. During the retreat/meeting in early
2025, the ARB will have the opportunity to review the photos and discuss the candidates.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: List of ARB-reviewed projects
ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
650-329-2321
Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org
1 AIA Silicon Valley Design Award information is available online: https://aiasiliconvalley.org/designawards/
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
1 22PLN-00142 Office 901 S California AV
Demolition of an existing 54,930 square foot, two-story
office building and Construction of a new two-Story
55,583 square foot office building with a 2,709 square
foot amenity space.
2 22PLN-00328 Signage 900 WELCH RD
Master Sign Program and Sign Exception to Allow
installation of Proposed New Wayfinding Signage and
messaging updates to existing signage on the Stanford
Medicine campus to support the upcoming Blake Wilbur
Drive Roadway Extension.
3 23PLN-00147 Residential 810 LOS TRANCOS RD
Site and Design application to allow the removal of an
existing pool and construction of a new lap pool, removal
of three (3) existing trees and planting of ten (10) new 24-
inch box trees, and proposed site improvements such as
new retaining walls, steps, firepit, hardscaping, and
lighting.
4 23PLN-00010 Residential 800 SAN ANTONIO RD
Rezoning to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning
to Allow the merging of lots 800 and 808 San Antonio
Road, to form an 0.88 acre site. The Project will be a 75
unit residential building with 15 BMR units. The building
is designed as a 5 story building with four levels of wood
framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two
levels of subterranean parking. The Project also includes
a common-use interior courtyard and roof deck, as well
as balconies and patios, and amenity spaces.
5 19PLN-00079 Mixed Use 788 SAN ANTONIO RD
Architectural Review and Subdivision to Allow the
Demolition of (2) existing buildings with the combined
square footage of approximately 17,000 square feet.
Construction of an approximately 85,724 square foot (4)
Story mixed-use building and two-level below grade
basement. The new structure will include (102) for sale
residential units, 1,779 square feet of retail space, 107
parking stalls and (116) bike parking spaces. Sixteen units
to be designated for BMR housing.
6 20PLN-00164 Signage 744 SAN ANTONIO RD
Sign Exception for a ‘dual-brand’ multi-structure property
and the installation of several illuminated wall signs
including Logo Cabinets, Halo Lit Channel letters on
Canopys, Entry placards, and Door/ Window Film.
7 22PLN-00201 Residential 739 SUTTER AV
Streamlined Housing Development Review for
Approximately 18,000 Square Foot (sf) Multi-Family
Project Consisting of 12 Three-Bedroom Condominium
Units in 3-story Buildings on an Approximately 0.38-acre
(16,707 sf) Parcel. The Project would replace an existing 8-
Unit Residential Rental Building. The Project includes two
Units Provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly,
Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State
Density Bonus Law.
ARB Awards Eligibility List Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 19
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
8 18PLN-00068 Residential 702 CLARA DR
Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, four unit
apartment building and Construction of three detached
single family homes totaling approximately 4,998 square
feet.
9 19PLN-00040 Residential 656 LYTTON AV
Review of proposed revisions to the facades of existing
multi-family affordable senior housing facilities and other
minor site revisions including but not limited to new
casework, flooring, paint, plumbing fixtures, and lighting
fixtures as well as upgrades to the HVAC system.
10 20PLN-00134 Public Facility 650 CLARK WY
Review to allow in-channel creek bank stabilization of the
Children’s Health Council property. The proposed project
will install a live log crib wall with a rock toe within San
Francisquito Creek to prevent future erosion impacts.
11 19PLN-00326 Commerical 620 EMERSON ST
Minor Board level Architectural Review to allow to Allow
Changes to a Previously Approved ARB Project (17PLN-
00331) for the Construction of a for construction of a
new 2,756 square foot commercial building that will have
an exterior garden element. The first and second floor
will be an expansion of the existing NOBU restaurant at
180 Hamilton Avenue.
12 21PLN-00196 Residential 575 LOS TRANCOS RD
Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a
new 7,110 sf single-family residence with a new 895 sf
Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated site
improvements, including a swimming pool, on a 5.38-
acre site.
13 19PLN-00413 Commerical 555 MIDDLEFIELD RD
Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Design
Enhancement Exception to Allow for Modifications to the
Facade of an Existing Medical Office Building and Other
Minor Site Improvements.
14 23PLN-00311 Signage 530 LYTTON AV
Master Sign Program for the installation of 1 illuminated
monument, 1 illuminated address, 1 illuminated wall
property ID, 1 parking ID w/ uplight, 1 illuminated
parking blade and 1 non-illuminated parking entry ID at
530 Lytton. This application is being reviewed along with
435 Tasso and 525 University.
15 23PLN-00308 Signage 525 UNIVERSITY AV
Master Sign Program, in conjunction with site signage for
530 Lytton. Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign
(Type A), One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign (Type B),
One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One
Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D),
and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking
Monument ID (Type E).
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 20
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
16 19PLN-00038 Commerical 488 UNIVERSITY AV
Conversion of a Residential Use to a Hotel Use to
Accommodate 100 Guestrooms. Historic Review
Application for Interior and Exterior Renovations to the
Hotel President and a Parking Adjustment to
Accommodate the Hotel Use. Conditional Use Permit to
Allow for Restoration and Use of a Historic Rooftop
Garden. Proposed Revisions Include Structural and
Seismic Retrofit of the Existing Structure.
17 20PLN-00295 Office 436 WAVERLEY ST Review to allow the remodel of an existing 2,761 SF, 2-
story office building and an addition of 113 SF.
18 19PLN-00142 Office 4260 EL CAMINO REAL
Minor Architectural Review to Allow for façade
improvement to existing structure. Scope of work
includes removing existing wood siding and replace with
metal siding, and metal cable railing along all stairways
19 21PLN-00034 Parking 4256 EL CAMINO REAL
Minor Project Architectural Review Board for updated
parking plan (changing from 2 level garage to 1 level
garage) with parking reduction.
20 18PLN-00096 Commerical 4256 EL CAMINO REAL
Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an
Existing 3,300 Square Foot Commercial Building and
Construction of a new Five-Story approximately 51,300
Square Foot, 96 Room Hotel with Below-Grade Parking.
A Director's Adjustment is Requested for a Reduction in
Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space
Dimensions.
21 23PLN-00058 Residential 420 ACACIA AV
Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the
Construction of Multi-Family project consisting of 16 two
and three-bedroom condominium units in four 2 and 3-
story buildings. The Project would replace a paved, 68-
space surface parking lot. The Project includes two Units
provided at Below Market Rate and, Accordingly,
Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State
Density Bonus Law.
22 20PLN-00040 Open Space 4175 PAGE MILL RD
Site and Design to Allow the removal and replacement of
an existing vault restroom with a prefabricated CXT vault
restroom, installation of American Disabilities Act (ADA)
parking stalls, and construction of an ADA path of travel
from parking stalls to the restroom and minor grading
and flat work of an existing 2,000 square foot gravel
parking lot.
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 21
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
23 24PLN-00041 Residential 3980 EL CAMINO REAL
Streamlined Housing Development Review application to
allow the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village
mobile home park into two parcels, featuring a new
100% affordable housing development with a 61 unit
multi-family apartment building on one parcel and a 44
unit, occupant owned mobile home park on the second
parcel. The proposed 61-unit rental development and
work within the City's public ROW is subject to the City's
purview. Development of the mobile home parcel will be
subject to HCD purview.
24 23PLN-00160 Public Facility 3600 MIDDLEFIELD RD
Deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station
Number 4 and construction of a new 8,000 square foot
fire station. The application also includes a Variance
request from the City's 50% shading canopy coverage in
the parking lot.
25 17PLN-00305 Mixed Use 3585 EL CAMINO REAL
Review to allow the demolition of an existing
approximately 800 square foot commercial structure and
allow for construction of a new three-story
approximately 6,252 square foot mixed-use building. The
project includes three residential units and 3,126 square
feet of office space.
26 21PLN-00028 Office/R&D 3300 EL CAMINO REAL
Request for approval of a Major Architectural Review to
allow the construction of a new two-story, 50,355 square
foot office/R&D building with 40% surface parking & 60%
below-grade parking. The proposal includes 2,517 square
feet of amenity space.
27 20PLN-00032 Office 3241 PARK BL
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish an
existing 4,501 square foot building and construct a new
7,861 square foot office building.
28 19PLN-00237 Mixed Use 3215 PORTER DR
Request for Major Architectural Review for the
Construction of a New 22,029 Square Foot Two Story
Office Building on a vacant lot within Stanford Research
Park at 3215 Porter Drive. The new building will include
1,100 sq ft of amenity space, landscape improvements to
the site, above and below ground parking facilities, and
upgrades to the driveway entry to the site.
29 21PLN-00330 Commerical 321 California AV
Request for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review
application to allow the demolition of a 1969 addition to
321 California Ave and the construction of a new dining
pavilion, bar, and courtyard. The project also includes a
reconfigured parking lot and spaces and a new trash
enclosure.
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 22
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
30 22PLN-00287 Mixed Use 3200 PARK BL
Sobrato Organization for a development agreement
application, a Planned Community rezoning, a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Major
Architectural Review to allow the development of 74
townhomes, conversion of a 2,600 sf space that is
currently automobile services to convert to Research and
Development use, construction of a new single story
parking garage. The project would also allow 154,506
square feet of existing R&D space and 4,707 square feet
of existing office space to remain at the site. The project
site is 14.65 acre property at 200-404 Portage Ave, 3040-
3250 Park Blvd, 3201-3225 Ash St & 278 Lambert Ave.
Zoning District: RM-30.
31 22PLN-00229 Residential 3001 EL CAMINO REAL
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish two
existing retail buildings and to construct a 129 unit, 100%
affordable, five-story, multi-family residential
development utilizing allowances and concessions
provided in accordance with State Density Bonus
regulations. The units would be deed restricted to serve
tenants meeting 30%-50% of Area Median Income. The
project would be located on a proposed new 49,864
square foot lot located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. The
project is subject to streamlining in accordance with
Senate Bill 330 as a qualifying Housing Development
Project.
32 19PLN-00304 Golf Course 3000 ALEXIS DR
Request for the site with no import or export of material.
The intent is to update the course design but not to alter
the existing character of the landform
33 22PLN-00059 Signage 300 Pasteur DR
Request for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review
application to allow an exception to the Master Sign
Program at 300 Pasteur Dr. Zoning District: HD.
34 21PLN-00235 Hospital 300 Pasteur DR
Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to
Allow an Addition of Approximately 37,000 sf to an
Existing Stanford Hospital Building to Meet Seismic
Standards and Enable Renovation of Existing Patient
Rooms, and Associated Landscape Changes. Zoning
District: HD.
35 21PLN-00177 Residential 2850 W BAYSHORE RD
Request for a Major Architectural Review to allow for the
demolition of an existing office building and construction
of 48 townhomes in eight, six-unit buildings, with
associated private streets, utilities, landscaping, and
amenities. The project includes right of way expansion
for a bike lane and construction of a 14-foot sound wall
along West Bayshore Road across from the project
frontage. In addition, the project includes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a residential use within the
ROLM zone district.
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 23
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
36 18PLN-00006 Commerical 285 HAMILTON AV
Zone Change to allow for a text amendment to allow for
roof-top decks and patios on existing structures over 50
feet in the Downtown Commercial zone districts, a
Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor activity area
in excess of 2,000 square feet, and Architectural Review
to allow for a roof-top deck on an existing commercial
building located at 285 Hamilton Avenue.
37 21PLN-00176 Residential 2609 ALMA ST
Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of
two existing one-story Apartment Buildings containing
four (4) units and to construct four (4) new three-story
townhome style apartments. The total proposed floor
area of the four units is 4,766 Square Foot.
38 21PLN-00121 Commerical 2585 E BAYSHORE RD
Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to
allow the removal and replacement of building façade
materials, addition of outdoor patio/employee amenity
space, replacement of rooftop mechanical equipment,
new landscaping throughout the site and changes to the
parking lot.
39 19PLN-00258 Signage 250 SHERMAN AV
RReview for of one illuminated free-standing sign that
exceeds the allowed sign area. The sign is proposed to be
60"H x 138”L with an area 40.25 square feet where only
24 square feet is allowed.
40 19PLN-00220 Public Facility
3380 Coyote Hill Road,
3223 Hanover Street, and
1501 Page Mill Road
Minor Board-Level Architectural Review to remove and
replace (3) three new bus stops in the public right-of-way
located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street
and 1501 Page Mill Road and improve surrounding
hardscape.
41 19PLN-00130 Public Facility
San Francisquito Creek
between Palo Alto and
East Palo Alto
Review to Allow for the replacement of an existing bridge
that spans San Francisquito Creek between Palo Alto and
East Palo Alto. There will be new retaining walls in public
right of way around the bridge, underground and above-
ground utilities will be relocated, and the road along the
bridge will be widened to accommodate vehicle and
pedestrian traffic.
42 21PLN-00281 Commerical 250 CAMBRIDGE AV
Minor Review to allow the revitalization of the façade for
an existing 40 year old 3-story office building that
includes new materials and refined proportions to create
a more inviting public entry and improved pedestrian
experience. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is
requested to increase the height of the building to allow
for light monitors to be installed on the roof. Zoning
District: CC(2)(R).
43 22PLN-00164 Commerical 217 ALMA ST
Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance for an
Alternative Viable Use to Allow for an Animal Care
provider (Modern Animal) to Occupy a 4200 square foot
portion of the site. Zone District (CD-N[P]).
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 24
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
44 20PLN-00247 Commerical 2100 EL CAMINO REAL
Approval of a Proposed Grocery Store Related to
Planning Code Ordinance Number 5069 (College Terrace
Centre) Based on the Finding That the Proposed Grocery
Tenant Would be Comparable in Quality of Produce and
Services as Previous Grocers at this Same Location
45 23PLN-00009 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
V820B
Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior
improvements, including a new façade, new storefront
glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for
Arhaus at the Stanford Shopping Center.
46 22PLN-00070 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
E715
Major Architectural Review Board (ARB) and CUP
submittal for Hummus Mediterranean Kitchen ( Formally
Cocola Bakery ) Space # 715, Bldg. E (#E715) at the
Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements
include new oak infill panels, new entry façade, new bi-
fold doors, signage, outdoor seating. Interior
improvements will include complete interior remodel.
47 23PLN-00323 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
E705A
Major Architectural Review of “The Melt” façade
improvements, redesign of outdoor dining area
(removing 134 square feet of FAR) and new signage at
Stanford Shopping Center, located in the Community
Commercial zoning district (CC).
48 22PLN-00237 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
E700A
Minor Review Board (ARB) review for Sushi Roku
restaurant (formally Yucca De Lac) and CUP for alcohol
service at Space #700B, Bldg. E (#E700B) at the Stanford
Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new
façade, new storefront glazing, outdoor patios and new
signage. Interior improvements will include complete
interior remodel.
49 22PLN-00028 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
D71
180 El Camino Real [22PLN-00028]: Request by Jason
Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford
University, for Major Architectural Review of Brilliant
Earth façade improvements and signage at Stanford
Shopping Center,
50 21PLN-00326 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
BB1130A
180 El Camino Real [21PLN-00326]: Request by Jason
Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford
University, for Major Architectural Review of ALO Yoga
façade improvements and signage at Stanford Shopping
Center
51 21PLN-00122 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
16B
Peloton's new storefront façade, storefront glazing, and
new signage at their new location (16B, Bldg. C - Bed Bath
& Body Works) within the Stanford Shopping Center. The
application includes a request for a Sign Exception for a
sign that does not comply with the Master Tenant Façade
& Sign (MTSF) program for the Stanford Shopping Center
& the Municipal Code Sign Area Allowance.
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 25
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
52 20PLN-00003 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
002B
Review to Allow the Construction of a Two-Story Retail
Building (Building FF Wilkes Bashford) of 28,714 Square
Feet Located in the Stanford Shopping Center.
53 19PLN-00110 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE
0
Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300
Square Foot Macy's Men's Located in the Stanford
Shopping Center and Construction of a New Three-Story
Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500
Square Feet, Two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500
Square Feet Each and Construction of a new stand alone
retail building, Approximate 28,000 square feet. (Total
square feet 78,500).
54 23PLN-00155 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL,
BLDG B
Minor Review application to allow exterior modifications
including changes to plaster, metal color, and
modification of minor architectural details.
55 22PLN-00049 Commerical 180 EL CAMINO REAL
Review application to allow the demolition of an existing
8,075 square foot building and the construction of two
retail spaces totaling 11,799 square feet, the relocation
of utilities in the proposed project area and an update to
the pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
56 20PLN-00172 Signage 180 El Camino Real
Removal and Installation of Macy's Signs at the Stanford
Shopping Center, New Signage is Not a Direct
Replacement of the Existing Signage Nor Does it Conform
with the Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program in Place.
A Sign Exception is Required.
57 21PLN-00191 Commerical 1700 EMBARCADERO RD
Major Site and Design application to allow the demolition
of the former Ming's restaurant building to allow the
construction of a new two-story 26,336 square foot
Mercedes Benz automotive dealership and service
facility. On site improvements will include surrounding
customer and inventory parking spaces, surrounding
landscaping and construction of a dumpster enclosure.
58 20PLN-00301 Residential 160 WAVERLEY ST
Review to allow the demolition of three existing
residential structures (Detached Triplex) for the
construction of two new structures containing three
apartment flats. Each apartment flat is a 3-bedroom 3
1/2 bathroom dwelling unit. The front building is two-
stories and has a second-story one apartment and 6 tuck-
under parking stalls at grade. The front building also has
a large rooftop terrace proposed. The second building is
set back on the site, two stories, and has one apartment
on each story.
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 26
#Permit # Type Address Work Description
ARB Awards Eligibility List
59 22PLN-00363 Mixed Use 151 California AV E101
Approval of a Waiver From the Retail Preservation
Ordinance for an Alternative Viable Use to Allow for a
Medical Office Use to Occupy a 3,500 Square Foot Tenant
Space.formerly occupied by a restraurant tenant (151
California Avenue, Unit E101) in the Palo Alto Central
mixed use condominium.
60 19PLN-00116 School 1310 BRYANT ST
Castilleja School Project Including Subterranean Garage
and New Campus Building Replacing Three Existing
Classroom Buildings and a Maintenance Building and
Other Site Modifications. Associated Concurrent
Applications include Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
Variance applications (16PLN-00238) (the 2017 Tentative
Map with Exceptions application (17PLN-00234) is not
moving forward).
61 21PLN-00092 Commerical 1250 PAGE MILL RD
Minor Review to allow façade improvements, including
the installation of new doors and windows on the
southern and western facade of Building 4 within an
existing exterior storefront window-wall system.
Modifications also include an outdoor dining patio and
landscaping on the Southwest Corner of the building.
62 21PLN-00172 Commerical 123 SHERMAN AV
Review to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Buildings and
to Allow the Construction of a New 3-story office building
with Two Levels of Below-grade Parking. This Project
Would also Require a Lot Merger to Merge three existing
parcels.
63 20PLN-00182 695 Arastradero Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery
64 Commercial 180 El Camino Real L'Occitane Facade Remodel
65 New 3159 El Camino Real Mixed Use S&D
66 Mixed Use 3265 El Camino Real Mixed Use project
67 Mixed Use 3585 El Camino Real Mixed-Use
68 Housing 3705 El Camino Real 59 Affordable Units at Wilton Court
69 Mixed Use 3877 El Camino Real Compadres Mixed Use Project
70 Hotel 3945 El Camino Real Comfort Inn Hotel Renovation
71 Mixed Use 4115 El Camino Real 7 Unit Mixed-Use
72 Commercial 620 Emerson Street Nobu Restaurant (Revision)
73 Commercial 620 Emerson Street Nobu Restaurant Annex
74 Mixed Use 486 Hamilton Mixed Use with Four Units
75 Office / R&D 3215 Porter Drive New Office/R&D Building (Stanford transit hub)
76 252 Ramona Street Two residential units in the NP
77 New 240-248 University Mixed Use
78 Residential 2321 Wellesley Street Two New Units & Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP)
79 Public Facility Highway 101 Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass & Adobe Creek Reach Trail
= Projects carried over from the 2024 Awards
Item 3
Attachment A: List of
ARB-Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 27
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: December 19, 2024
Report #: 2412-3872
TITLE
Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Minutes of November 21, 2024
AUTHOR/TITLE:
ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 28
Page 1 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: November 21, 2024
Council Chamber & Zoom
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on November 21, 2024 in Council
Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 a.m.
Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board
member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch
Absent: None.
Chair Rosenberg welcomed all to the meeting and called the meeting to order.
Administrative Assistant Veronica Dao called roll and declared there was a quorum.
Oral Communications
There were no requests to speak.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
There were no agenda changes, additions, or deletions proposed.
City Official Reports
1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items
Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer announced that one project and one study session had been
targeted for the December 5 ARB meeting, which was the El Camino Real focus area study session and
the 660 University project. A new ARB project located at 340 Portage Avenue had been submitted,
which was a master sign program. There would be three more meetings this year, including today’s. The
2025 meeting schedule was in the packet. He asked that any anticipated absences be directed to
Veronica Dao.
Board Member Hirsch recommended that there be a schedule in the project schedule list if a project
changes in a significant way.
Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Switzer commented that there were pending ARB projects detailing that
information as an attachment, which was noted under the status notes column.
Action Items
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 29
Page 2 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00012]: Consideration of an
Application to Rezone the Vacant Subject Parcel from Commercial Services (CS) to Planned
Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to Construct a 100% affordable, Five‐story, 55
Dwelling Unit Residential Rental Project. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being
Reviewed for an Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (In‐Fill).
Chair Rosenberg announced the item and added that staff recommended the ARB take the following
actions: Consider the project exempt from CEQA and recommend approval of the proposed project to
City Council based on the ARB findings (Attachment B) and subject to conditions of approval
(Attachment B).
PUBLIC COMMENT
Principal Planner Garrett Sauls displayed slides and discussed the process and history of the application.
They were targeting a special session with the PTC for December 18, depending on the outcome of
today’s hearing and hoped to get a recommendation for that. Following that, they would target a
Council decision or at least attend a Council hearing in January or early February. He provided an
overview of the project. He discussed why an additional 11 units had been introduced into the project,
which would target a deeper level of affordability. Additional parking spaces and bike storage was also
proposed. The site coverage and setback requirements would not change. The minimum open space
area per unit had increased. With increasing the number of units, the code required a short-term drop-
off requirement for vehicle parking, which the project did not incorporate. He discussed the location of
the project in proximity to other projects. The El Camino Real focus area only applied to the Page Mill
side and Matadero side of the street. Regarding the westward facing side, the City was evaluating where
to expand the El Camino Real focus area. He detailed the feedback received from the ARB at the April 18
hearing concerning design. He spoke of concerns the applicant had related to recessing the garage door,
the skylight, and the interior door to the garage from the lobby. The applicant had incorporated vertical
windows on one side of the building and changes to the rear façade to break up massing of the building.
Regarding privacy concerns and windows, additional solutions had been discovered, which he outlined.
The project satisfied Option 2 of Council’s PHZ requirements. The project was located within the North
Ventura Coordinated Area Plan/future NVCAP boundaries, but those standards did not currently apply
to this project. Any future application would likely need to conform to those standards. The project
requested removal of a valley oak, but it exceeded the 25-percent threshold for the buildable area and
allowed for the tree to be removed. The roof deck would provide the majority of the open space
requirements, which had been expanded previously. Staff recommended this project be reviewed, the
CEQA document be considered, and the project be recommended for approval to the PTC.
Chair Rosenberg requested that Board members who had revisited the site declare such and to let the
Board know if there were any additional disclosures. She had no disclosures.
Council Member Baltay disclosed that he visited the site yesterday.
Council Member Hirsch voiced that he visited the site this past week.
Council Member Adcock disclosed that her office was on Lambert almost next to the site but she did not
own her office property.
Vice Chair Chen had no disclosure.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 30
Page 3 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Applicant Jason Matlof discussed his interest in building the 100-percent affordable housing project,
which would be prioritized for the educator unions for the Palo Alto school districts. He mentioned that
almost all of the ARB’s feedback had been incorporated into the revised application, which he thought
resulted in a better design. The most significant change in the revision was the increase to five
residential floors. This was a for-profit project trying to achieve community benefit using the planned
housing zone process. He noted that there was support from the teachers’ unions, the two most recent
presidents of the school board, the League of Women Voters, Palo Alto Forward, and others. He
discussed the reasoning for increasing the residential floors and units, which included a higher ratio of
lower and moderate income units and reduced rents for each level of affordability. He furnished a slide
detailing how rents would be calculated.
Applicant Isaiah Stackhouse provided an overview of the project, which received no subsidies from Palo
Alto or other public funds. It was to be a 100-percent BMR project and would be 500 feet from the
closest residential district. He voiced that it would improve commutes, strengthen schools, etc. He
shared a slide with the site context and a slide with comments from the last ARB hearing with the
applicant’s responses, which he detailed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Stephen Levy emphasized that there had been positivity in a previous meeting related to 3150. He noted
that the ARB recognized that the applicant needed to see economic feasibility. He had calculated that
there would be significant commute benefits and that there would be proximity to transit and to
California Avenue, which was an environmental benefit. He discussed the business tax helping fund
projects for low-income residents, and he stated that this project would equal the entire benefit from
the business tax. He requested this be moved forward.
Manuel Salazar spoke on behalf of Silicon Valley at Home. He discussed why he considered this to be a
wonderful project and hoped it would move forward.
Board Member Adcock asked if the project going to the lot lines on three sides might influence potential
future projects building up to the lot lines at the Indo Restaurant site or the hotel site and if there would
be a dedicated spot for the pick-up/drop-off deliveries on Lambert.
Principal Planner Sauls answered that this could potentially influence future projects at other sites. This
area was considered to be high density, which was consistent with longstanding Comp Plan policies and
El Camino Real design guidelines, which encouraged creating a sort of boulevard along El Camino with
taller buildings. There would not be a dedicated spot for drop off and loading on the public right of way.
Board Member Baltay inquired if it would be possible for a neighbor of the building to build a 65-foot
tall building to the property line.
Principal Planner Sauls replied that potentially a neighbor of the building could build to the property
line. It could be a 65-foot building assuming that the El Camino Real focus areas would come forward in
the future and a project could potentially be up to 85-foot tall at an adjacent location to this project.
Board Member Baltay queried if garage gates would be open between certain hours as opposed
individuals opening and closing the gate with each entrance/exit.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 31
Page 4 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Applicant Stackhouse responded that the intent was to keep the door closed for security purposes, but
they were looking at high-speed doors.
Board Member Hirsch questioned if vehicles pulling into the garage would have to interrupt the bike
lane; if everyone in the building could automatically open the door from their vehicle with a remote; if
lot line windows were allowed; what kind of visibility there would be for exiting the garage; and if there
would be room for vehicles to enter and exit at the same time.
Applicant Stackhouse answered that vehicles should be able to get out of the way of bicycle traffic.
Recessing the door would create a security issue. Everyone in the building would be able to
automatically open the door from their vehicle with a remote. Over the last 15 years, they had done
over 50 buildings throughout the Bay Area and had never recessed a door more than four feet and never
had an issue. He discussed lot line windows being allowed and what could be done if there was a
neighboring building on the property line. They would probably not put windows in the garage, but the
garage door would provide light, the doorway into the side yard could be glass, and there could also be
windows into the side yard. He explained the issues with installing a skylight, though they could
continue to consider how it might be done. Maybe they could consider a transom window in the rear
wall. Visibility exiting the garage fully met the City’s standards for view triangles. There was room for a
car to enter and exit at the same time.
Vice Chair Chen asked if consideration had been given to adding windows in the stair areas for light and
if the garage door height had been increased proportionally to the increase in the ground level floor to
ceiling height.
Applicant Stackhouse answered that they had not considered adding windows in the stairs areas,
although they could consider that and a skylight in the top. The stair area spaces tended to be on the
property line, but he would have to research to determine if any of these areas were not on the
property line. There might be an opportunity to add windows to the rear stair area. The garage door
height had been increased, and with the clear story windows above, there should be good light. The
door to the side yard could also have a fairly large transom.
Vice Chair Chen requested clarification of the front building elevations, the clerestory, and the transom
that had been referenced. She inquired what materials would be used for the privacy screening on the
balconies between the units.
Applicant Stackhouse indicated that the clerestory could be added above the garage. It appeared that
they were relying on the frosted glass door, which he thought was a 12-foot door, which could be
adjusted to include clear stories above it. He supplied a slide and pointed out what was intended to be a
grill line, which was roughly an 18-inch zone, and he detailed what that was for. The privacy screening
would likely be wood, six feet tall, and the same color as the accent material.
Board Member Adcock referenced the space above the storefront windows and the garage door and
inquired if the rendered elevation matched the intent more than what was depicted in Section A4.1; if
the window height would be similar to what was shown on the exterior elevations; and if the doors were
intended to be about 9 feet with about 6 feet of glazing above and then the panel, which would be a 3:2
proportion.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 32
Page 5 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Applicant Stackhouse remarked that the space above the storefront windows and the garage door
would be resolved in design development and construction drawings. The intent was for the lobby to
have as much tall glazing as possible. The doors, glazing, and the panel above were intended to be a 3:2
proportion.
Board Member Baltay asked if the depths of the recesses on the sides of the building would be five feet
and if the ventilation requirement of the building code was a percentage of units being served and what
that percentage was. He thought it was five percent, but he was not sure. He inquired if the side walls
would have a texture or if it would be a flat panel, if the applicant had previously used painted fiber
cement on projects, and how long the paint on fiber cement would last.
Applicant Stackhouse replied that the recess would be five feet, which was a function of the building
code, and the depth of the balconies was also very prescriptive. The building code allowed for fully
mechanical ventilation, but otherwise it was a percentage, which was low and which they far exceeded.
They would never do 100-percent mechanical ventilation. The side walls would be an assembly of
panels, which was somewhat of a modernized board and batten system, which had a change in depth to
it. The shadow depth would be limited to the thickness of the material. The paint would be field applied.
They had first used painted fiber cement on a project about 12 years ago, and it had not yet been
repainted.
Chair Rosenberg queried if the garage door and the lower windows would be frosted glass. The Hardie
board appeared to be a wood finish, and she was concerned that the shadow lines may be
overexaggerated in the rendering. She liked the concept of it, but she wanted to ensure it would not
appear to be flat, painted orange-brown block. She asked if the concept of a drop-off and pick-up space
on Lambert had to be dedicated to this building or if it could serve several buildings. It would be
interesting to have a site serving a couple buildings instead of each building having their own dedicated
spot. She questioned if there would be an alarm system with the high-speed garage door to let
pedestrians and bicyclists know a car was entering or exiting the area; why small side windows were
added only to the south façade but not to the north side; if there was anything addressing the
maintenance of the rooftop trees; and how the trash from individual units would be taken to the
basement.
Applicant Stackhouse responded that the garage door would be frosted glass, so there would be light
from there and from the doorway into the side yard. The lower windows would also be frosted. He
provided an example of the Hardie board. They had not discussed an alarm system with the high-speed
garage door, but systems existed. He discussed why the small side windows were added only to the
south façade. The whole rooftop was landscaped and would have a maintenance program. He detailed
the route tenants would take to the trash area. They had not found a way to install a door from the
lobby into the garage and were open to suggestions for doing it. They had determined it was not
feasible to install trash shoots.
Principal Planner Sauls would have to do some research to determine if the drop-off and pick-up space
on Lambert had to be dedicated for this building or if it could serve several buildings. In some sense, this
would be offsite parking. The requirements focused on providing onsite parking. It would be very
challenging to do that onsite without significantly recessing the bottom floor back from the front
property line, which would most likely create circulation challenges.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 33
Page 6 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Board Member Adcock asked if the balcony doors were fire rated and if the stairs toward the front had
the required egress.
Applicant Stackhouse explained why the balcony doors did not need to fire rated. The stairs toward the
front fully met building code widths.
Board Member Hirsch noted that with a couple more feet a trash shoot could be installed at the back
wall of the staircase in the garage, and he pointed out that without the bathroom in the back there
would be room for a trash shoot. He suggested that the bathroom be in another location, perhaps on
the roof. He asked about areas under the staircase and the van parking spot. He spoke the stairwell
needing light. He inquired if it was possible to have a cellar area with an elevator going down to the
trash area at that level.
Applicant Stackhouse replied that the bathroom was not a requirement but allowed maintenance staff a
bathroom. Even without the bathroom, there was not enough room in the side yard for trash
receptacles. The areas under the staircase did not have enough height. The van parking spot had been
heavily vetted through meetings with the Building Department. They could look at light in the stairwell,
which might include windows and which he thought was feasible. He discussed a cellar being
astronomically expensive.
Chair Rosenberg closed the public portion of the hearing. She was overall pleased with the project. She
did not want to overemphasize what might potentially go next to this building because that would be
addressed when it occurred. She liked the idea of a transom window in the bike room and either
skylights or windows at the staircases. She detailed her concerns with the Hardie board siding and spoke
of aluminum siding being an alternative and requested that be evaluated. She added that paint color
could add more variety than one flat color. She wanted the end product to look close the renderings.
Principal Planner Sauls asked if Chair Rosenberg was speaking of considering multiple colors with the
Hardie board siding.
Chair Rosenberg stated that some panels could be dark in color and some light.
Board Member Baltay stated that he was not comfortable with some pieces of the project. He felt the
site was too tight and the building too tall and that it was too much for Palo Alto. He was concerned
with the garage entrance being too close to the street; there being no service, drop-off, or visitor
accommodations; bicycle parking being difficult to get to (it should be closer to the main entrance); the
space allowed for navigating into the parking spaces; the second-floor balconies not being private and
there not being enough room for them; the building being 20 feet above the street before there was
human activity; the building height; and the quality of the fiber cement siding. Related to trash drop off,
he thought there should be a better connection from the lobby to the garage. He spoke of future
development next to this building dramatically impacting the typology. He felt that too much was being
squeezed in. He found the basic design of the building to be well done. He remarked that low-income
housing should not result in lowered design and construction standards, which is what he saw with this
project. He could not support this as it was currently.
Board Member Hirsch stated that Board Member Baltay’s comments were not unreasonable. He noted
that this was somewhat of a supportive housing building, and he presumed the price of rents, land,
construction, etc., was being considered carefully, and he appreciated the effort being put into this with
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 34
Page 7 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
those limitations. He voiced that the decision had to be based on economics and the possibility of folks
who may not otherwise be able to reside in Palo Alto being able to live here. He thought the proportions
of the building had improved by adding a floor, which seemed appropriate. He was impressed with the
rooftop area. He was concerned with the lift system and there being a serious issue if it were to break
down. He wanted assurance that the lift would work and that it be proved to the City. He found the
setback and width of the garage to have reasonable visibility of the street, but this could be improved by
having cameras and monitors to allow for visibility up and down the street. He considered an eight-foot
pedestrian path to be sufficient, so maybe a camera would not be needed. He felt that interrupting
vehicle and bicycle traffic was a serious issue with visibility being the most significant. He accepted this
without the idea of cameras but he wanted it to be considered. He did not think trash drop off could be
improved. He was happy with the aesthetics of the building.
Chair Rosenberg stated that City staff had reviewed several projects that included car lifts. It was
determined at the prehearing that the applicant would maintain the car lifts. They were being
implemented all over the city.
Board Member Hirsch voiced that maintenance of the lifts was a budget issue to be taken extremely
seriously. Functionality issues needed to be considered. He thought there was enough space for vehicles
to maneuver but that there may need to be some protections on the wall for those who found the
movements difficult. It was helpful to reference turning radiuses in the package. He approved of the
project. He felt the standards would change on El Camino.
Board Member Adcock was concerned with the entrance and exit of the garage door especially as it
related to bicyclists. For safety, she recommended leaving the garage door open at certain times and, as
a condition of approval, she wanted there be audible and visible signs for bicyclists and pedestrians. She
did not find that bicyclists and pedestrians would have great visibility of what would be exiting the
garage. She stated that the unit types being studios and one bedrooms limited the diversity of residents.
She was not asking that it be changed, but she wanted other projects coming forward to be more
inclusive of families. She felt 55 units should be supported, although she was concerned that it was
more than 10 feet above the 65 feet overall. She commented that Palo Alto needed this type of project.
Vice Chair Chen was generally in favor of the project. Although there were issues Board Member Baltay
mentioned, she found that there was a good balance to provide a solution to the major issues. Access to
the garage concerned her as it related to safety. She voiced that a visual and audio alarm was necessary.
She stated that moving the garage door back a couple more feet may be helpful and requested that be
reassessed. She was not too concerned with the functional side of the lift system, but she suggested
additional measurements be taken related to sound and vibration issues that could be problematic for
the second level tenants, which she thought would be addressed in the building permit phase. She
strongly suggested adding windows to the staircases. She supported the proposed building height and
the design of the lobby and garage door. She thought it was an approvable project.
Board Member Baltay noted that open space requirements had not been discussed and that the project
did not come close to meeting the requirements. He questioned why the requirement was being waived
for this building.
Chair Rosenberg remarked that certain concessions needed to be made if buildings were going to be
built. She wanted the rooftop terrace to be expanded, but she did not know if it was feasible. She
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 35
Page 8 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
thought for this project specifically that the Board was trying to find a balance of how much the project
would be deterred based on a potential future build versus the current standards.
Board Member Baltay expressed that two standards of design were being created, one for low-income
projects and one for regular projects, which he found unpleasant.
Chair Rosenberg explained that, unfortunately, two standards of design were required.
Board Member Hirsch commented that this was being presented as an urban project. He discussed this
being a potential part of the future development of the whole neighborhood, which had been
somewhat studied. Most of the time, one would have less personal space in the city, but there were
parks, etc. He explained that having density was important.
Board Member Baltay stated that the ARB was to enforce the current code, so he did not understand
why this project did not require open space. He voiced that the lot was too small for this size building
and that substandard design standards was not a solution but a second standard and everybody should
have the same standard.
Chair Rosenberg mentioned that the alternate would be no teacher housing.
Board Member Baltay responded that this was not the property, that there were other sites, that
sometimes things fit and sometimes they do not. He did not support the delivery area being around the
corner.
Chair Rosenberg remarked that with all the rules and regulations, the answer was not finding another
site.
Board Member Adcock stated that the unit type of studios and one bedrooms was almost transient.
Board Member Hirsch wanted, in the event the building might be sold, any future owner to maintain the
lifts and that there be a budget to ensure it.
Principal Planner Sauls stated that he was aware of the Board’s concerns. There were provisions within
the conditions of approval that ensured maintenance. Part of the requirements was that the City receive
a public benefit, and Council dictated that the public benefit was the level of affordability. The Board’s
concerns of what would be ideal versus what was seen in this project was a judgment call that needed
to be made by Council. He added that the Transportation Department included a condition of approval
(Number 28 on Packet Page 34) related to recessing the garage door.
Board Member Hirsch noted that Vice Chair Chen had commented that moving the door back a couple
feet would be helpful.
Board Member Adcock voiced her concerns with visibility should the garage door be recessed.
Chair Rosenberg agreed and advocated for keeping it to the foreground.
Board Member Hirsch was not in favor of recessing it.
Board Member Baltay voiced that many buildings the ARB reviewed were done that way.
Discussion ensured regarding recessing the garage door.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 36
Page 9 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Principal Planner Sauls stated that recessing the door further would potentially be 13 or 14 more feet
into the building and the vehicle stall would be about 17½ to 18-feet deep, which was a standard stall
depth.
Board Member Adcock expressed that the gate opening within 15 to 20 seconds was too long a time,
and she felt it was important that the garage door remain open during specific hours.
Chair Rosenberg countered that because she felt the visual of the door opening and closing was an
indicator to pedestrians and bicyclists that something was happening. For safety reasons, she had
concerns with the door remaining open.
Board Member Hirsch indicated that the Transportation Department should make the decision.
Chair Rosenberg agreed that it was in the purview of the Transportation Department.
MOTION: Chair Rosenberg made a motion to approve the project with the following conditions: A)
Natural light into the stairwells with skylights, windows, etc. B) Natural light into the bike storage. C)
Auditory and visual warnings at the garage door operation. D) Consider a potential schedule for
maintaining an open garage door at certain times of day. She was hesitant to include this because it fell
under PTC’s purview. As for light into the garage, she thought the garage door being glazed would be a
benefit and there was the side door. E) An ad hoc meeting for the Hardie board siding to determine the
final answer related to the design element. F) The lifts must be maintained and operational (but she was
not sure if was necessary as it had to be followed by the PTC). G) Regarding condition of approval
Number 28, the garage door did not need to be recessed but it should be high speed and maintained as
such.
Principal Planner Sauls mentioned that staff could work with the applicant to get more specifics on the
details of the timing of the garage door opening and closing.
Board Member Adcock thought it should be under 10 seconds.
Chair Rosenberg accepted that friendly amendment.
Vice Chair Chen offered a friendly amendment to E. She thought details of the transition between the
boards vertically where they connected for each level should be provided.
Board Member Adcock seconded the motion.
VOTE: Motion carried 4-1 (Baltay no)
[The Board took a five-minute recess]
Chair Rosenberg asked, related to the siding, if there were any volunteers to serve on the ad hoc
committee and Board Members Baltay and Adcock volunteered.
3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 824 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00181]: Consideration of a
Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a New Four‐Story Mixed‐Use Building
with 28 Dwelling Units and 2,948 Square Feet of Retail Space. Fifteen Units will be Independent
Senior Living, 12 will be Assisted Senior Living, and One Owner’s Unit. On Site Amenities Include
Common Outdoor Open Spaces, a Dining Facility, and Common Indoor Space. The Project Also
Includes a Request for a Director’s Adjustment to Provide 23 Spaces Where 29 Spaces Would be
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 37
Page 10 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Required as well as a Housing Inventive Program (HIP) Waiver to Allow for 56% Lot Coverage
Where 50% is Required. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Being Evaluated for
Consistency with the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San
Antonio Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2019090070). Zoning District: CS
(Commercial Services).
Chair Rosenberg announced the item and noted that Housing Inventive Program Waiver should read
Housing Incentive Program Waiver. Staff recommended the following actions: 1) Consider the
consistency evaluation of the project the certified HIP expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project
Environmental Impact Report (Attachment G) and 2) Recommend approval of the Major Architectural
Review application, Director’s Parking Adjustment, and Director’s HIP waiver of lot coverage to the
Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the
conditions of approval in Attachment C.
Chair Rosenberg disclosed that she visited the site recently.
Board Member Baltay disclosed that he visited the site yesterday and did not see not see a public
notification sign on site.
Board Member Hirsch visited the site recently.
Vice Chair Chen visited the site recently.
Board Member Adcock visited the site when the item was in front of the ARB the last time.
Senior Planner Emily Kallas stated that this was a major architectural review application, which consisted
of 4 stories, 28 dwelling units, and 2,948 square feet of retail space. It had been reviewed by the ARB on
December 21, 2023. She provided slides and details related to the project location and the project
overview. The building elevations had been revised since the prior ARB meeting, the façade would
consist of two material forms, and a balcony space had been eliminated. The building height had not
changed. Minimal changes were made to the side elevations. The ARB had recommended that the wood
screen be removed from the rear façade, so that comment was incorporated as well as changes to the
first-floor windows. Materials and been replaced with natural color, as the ARB thought white was too
bright. The project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code and architectural review
findings as detailed in Attachment B, and it was determined to be consistent with the previously
certified EIR for the HIP area, and all mitigation measures from the EIR would apply to the project. Staff
recommended that the project be approved based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Board Member Hirsch inquired why it was necessary for all projects in this area have so much
commercial space on the ground floor and asked if the commercial space could be waived for this
project, if the Director had the ability to do such.
Senior Planner Kallas responded that the HIP was designed to allow housing in certain areas zoned
commercial service along El Camino and San Antonio Road. The intent was not to replace the
commercial area with housing but to allow housing in tandem with commercial uses. The project was
not subject to any waivers beyond the incentives provided by the HIP.
Assistant Director Jennifer Armer answered, regarding a retail space waiver, that an applicant could
request an exception through one of the processes, but this applicant was not requesting it.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 38
Page 11 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Applicant Kate Conley detailed how the design had been developed based on the ARB’s commentary.
The client’s vision for the property was to build a senior living facility that would be enjoyable and
include amenities that would meet her personal dreams of retirement, so it was a personal project for
her. The project comprised 27 units for seniors and a unit for the owner to occupy. There would be 24
parking spaces, which were EV ready or had the charging equipment installed, and multiple secured bike
facilities. The landscaping was drought tolerant. She listed the onsite amenities. The current structure on
the property was a retail office with one tenant. She outlined who the adjacent neighbors were. The
overall design inspiration for the project was a cenote. The project focused on the juxtaposition of rigid
and organic surfaces. She provided a diagram of how the areas of solid and void would be organized to
break up the mass of the building. She provided a refresher summary of the ARB’s previous comments
and shared ways the design had been improved with the incorporated suggestions and insights, which
included changes made to the street frontage façade, the courtyard façade, and the rear and north
façades; moving the truncated domes further from the entry doors; providing a true van accessible
parking space; and relocating the dining prep kitchen and bar facilities to the ground floor with the
assisted living facilities moving to the second floor, which simplified the trash collection path. She
explained why they kept the orientation of the gate at Stair 3. The owner had opted not to pursue a PHC
to eliminate the retail requirement. She outlined the circulation plan to the bike rooms, outdoor
amenities, etc. The depth of the balconies had been increased to six feet. The custom decorative wood
screen would be developed into a public art installation as the project progressed. The façade color had
been darkened.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
Board Member Adcock asked what the base zoning parking requirements were.
Senior Planner Kallas answered that the parking requirement for senior housing was 0.75 parking spaces
per unit. It was required that the owner’s unit have two parking spaces as it was to be a two-bedroom
unit. The first 1,500 square feet of the commercial component was exempt from parking and the
requirement beyond that was 1 per 200 square feet for a total of 8 required spaces. The typical number
of parking spaces required was 29 spaces, and 23 parking spaces were proposed. The 24th space would
be a loading space, which was not counted toward the required parking. Packet Page 104, Table 2 of
Attachment D noted that 17 spaces were dedicated to residential use and 4 spaces to retail use.
Board Member Baltay questioned if the material for the soffit on the projecting roofs over the balconies
would be aluminum with a synthetic wood finish. He recalled requesting that the bicycle room be
relocated or access to it be changed and asked why that was not done and if it was possible to have a
door at the side of the property, the pathway along the way, rather than at the Redwood reflection
garden.
Applicant Conley confirmed that the projecting roofs over the balconies would be aluminum with a
synthetic wood finish. It was the same cladding material as on the ground floor level in the rear and up
the central portion of the rear façade. There was a ground-level bike room with access through the side
yard. It was possible to have a door at the side of the property, the pathway along the way, rather than
at the Redwood reflection garden.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 39
Page 12 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Vice Chair Chen asked what the support system would be for the front screen feature. She referenced
the second story floorplan and asked it if was intended that the screen not extend to the back wall. The
[inaudible 3:12:10] showed a skylight but it was not shown on the roof plan, and she inquired if there
would be a skylight. She addressed Sheet PA5.1, the rear elevation, and asked if floor-to-ceiling-height
glazing had been considered for the dining room. She asked why the square window on the second floor
was different from the others.
Applicant Conley replied that the front screen feature would be artistic screen, a somewhat public art
component, which had not yet been designed. It would be produced and designed as part of the public
art process, so it would be up to the artist and her team to determine the support system. There was an
entire building enclosure wall behind that screen that was intended to be the actual exterior envelope
of the building. The design intent was for the screen to float in front of the building envelope, but they
did not yet know the support, structure, or depth the screen would have, so ample zone had been left
for the artist to design within while still meeting building against the setback requirement, the build-to
line.
Chair Rosenberg asked if the screen had the capacity to wiggle back and forth between the front and the
back of the frame.
Applicant Conley responded that the screen would potentially have the capacity to wiggle back and
forth between the front and the back of the frame. They did not yet know what it would look like. The
skylight shown on the owner’s unit should be removed. They could consider floor-to-ceiling height
glazing for the dining room. They would investigate why the square window on the second floor was
different from the others.
Senior Planner Kallas voiced that the screen would generally not be allowed to protrude into the front
setback.
Board Member Adcock noted that the windows on the first level did not line up vertically, and she
queried if that was intentional.
Applicant Conley responded that they would make adjustments to get the windows in better alignment.
Board Member Adcock voiced that the windows vertically aligning was less critical than there being an
odd-shaped window not matching anything else.
Board Member Hirsch asked if the front of the corridor on every floor faced the front end of the
building; why there was a minimal jog in the stairs as it met the office space or exercise room; and what
kind of the windows would be used.
Applicant Conley answered that the corridor on every floor of the building would be glass the full width
of the opening looking out onto the artistic screen out to San Antonio. She did not know why there was
a minimal jog in the stairs as it met the office space or exercise room. They could explore making
adjustments to flatten it out, but it would make the gym and the community room slightly smaller. The
windows would be single hung with a fixed sidelight.
Board Member Hirsch asked if there was an example of such a window being used in other projects.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 40
Page 13 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Applicant Conley would find a picture of as single-hung window that they had used in other projects,
although the proportion would not be the same and it may not have a sidelight.
Board Member Baltay thought Board Member Hirsch was referring to the sidelight. He noted that a
single-hung window had no support laterally, which may make it challenging.
Applicant Conley would explore with the window manufacturer possible challenges with the windows.
Board Member Hirsch commented that he was not suggesting using a double-hung window. He
questioned if the applicant was happy with a 50/50 proportion to the division of the operable piece;
why there were metal railings on the north side and glass railings on the south side; if there could be
one commercial space instead of two; how the common kitchen for the residence would be serviced; if
trash removal happened from the side alley; and how commercial trash would be addressed.
Applicant Conley answered that they needed close to a 50/50 proportion to the division of the operable
piece to meet emergency escape and rescue opening size. The window could be wider but not narrower.
There could be a thicker frame on the fixed-light portion. She explained why there were glass railings on
the south side and metal railings on the north side, although they could look at one or the other or it
being unified across the building. The client had requested two smaller retail spaces. She did not think
there was any code or planning-related reason why they could not be combined into one if the future
tenant preferred a larger space. The kitchen was to be a warming kitchen for meals that would be
prepared offsite and brought to the dining room. The meals would be brought through the building via
the corridor or the elevator, and there was potential to add a door on the side yard as well. She detailed
how trash removal would occur from the side alley. They were having discussions with GreenWaste to
ensure that the trash removal plan would work. The trash pathway for retail would be through the lobby
and back through the corridor. GreenWaste had accepted the plan to have trash carts for retail and bins
for residential trash. All the containers would end up at the street, and a loading zone had been created.
She detailed the logistics for trash pickup.
Chair Rosenberg asked to see the slide showing the juxtaposition of the different trash bins. She
questioned how often trash collection would occur. She was concerned with how often trash bins would
be positioned in front of the bike path and retail.
Applicant Conley clarified where the bins would be staged. She not know how often trash collection
occurred. Regarding trash bins being in front of the bike path and retail, she remarked that the frontage
of the building had been a puzzle and they were doing all they could to fit all the pieces into the narrow
street frontage. She agreed that the street-facing retail doors was tricky as it related to the trash
receptacles, although they thought most of the retail usage would be from residents within the building,
so they had prioritized that being a pleasant experience. There would be street-facing doors in case
retail tenants wanted them.
Board Member Hirsch asked if there was area for landscaping in the front of the building.
Applicant Conley stated that there would mostly be pavement at the front of the building. She pointed
out a couple areas of greenery.
Chair Rosenberg questioned why there were diagonal lines across the façade.
Applicant Conley explained what the diagonal lines across the façade were.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 41
Page 14 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Chair Rosenberg inquired if there was a concern with there being angled lines at a senior housing facility
where residents may have issues with vertigo or balance.
Applicant Conley had not considered the angled lines being an issue, but it was a good observation.
Board Member Adcock thought the applicant should provide the ARB with some parameters of the
public art piece since up to 60 percent of the building elevation in the front would be effected, and she
wanted to know what was being intended for the support system.
Applicant Conley replied, concerning the art, that they intended for it to be biophilic and natural. They
could put any amount of steel structure needed to connect pieces of the frame, but they would not
know the attachment points until they were aware of what the piece would be.
Chair Rosenberg queried if the art screening piece would return to the ARB or if the client would handle
that directly with the artist. She asked if there were any depictions of the front elevations without the
screen.
Senior Planner Kallas responded that the client, artist, and Public Arts Commission (PAC) would address
the art screening piece. It would not return to the ARB.
Applicant Conley did not have any depictions of the front elevations without the screen shown.
Board Member Adcock stated that with the previous plan to have assisted living units on the first floor
with full height glazing, the ARB requested the art piece screen across the way to make it a two-part
elevation instead of three part, and with the PAC purview, it may or may not extend the full elevation, in
which the case the front elevation would be four part instead of two part if there was no art piece. He
thought a condition should be that the art be one piece. She was less concerned about the side toward
the redwood trees but asked if it was sloped.
Applicant Conley replied that it was intended for the art screen to cover the entire area shown on the
displayed slide, which would be the charge given to the artist. The side toward the redwood trees was
slightly sloped.
Historic Planner/ARB liaison Steven Switzer voiced that the conversation was encroaching on the
purview of the PAC. He stated that perhaps some flexibility in that condition language could allow for
exploration of the entire area delineated on the plan set to be filled in, but if it was not within the ARB’s
purview, that cannot be requested.
Board Member Hirsch discussed why he considered that to be within the purview of the ARB.
Assistant Director Armer expressed that it could be discussed and recommendations provided, but
review of public art would go through the PAC.
Chair Rosenberg commented that she wanted everyone to be on the same page as it related to what
and where the art would be. She did not want it to be half of what the ARB expected or that it go only
one story, leaving three stories exposed.
Board Member Baltay expressed that this was not really a piece of art but was an integral, important
part of the building that should not be passed to the PAC. The architect could bring in the artist as a
consultant, but the full design of the building and the screen needed to be presented to the ARB.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 42
Page 15 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Board Member Adcock inquired what the line was between the purview of the PAC versus the ARB. She
noted, for instance, that the color shown was not being committed to.
Senior Planner Kallas thought the ARB was discussing whose purview it was. She voiced that it would
typically return to the ARB if the proposed location should be significantly different than what was
shown in the renderings.
Chair Rosenberg wanted to ensure that the quality of the material would be presented to the ARB one
more time, which was why she mentioned having an ad hoc. She understood the purview fell to the
ARB. The art was to be a significant portion of the façade and an architectural feature. She wanted the
owner and the artist to have freedom, but she thought it was appropriate for it to come back as an ad
hoc for the ARB to make a decision concerning the elevation.
Board Member Baltay noted that the design was the architect’s responsibility and that the ARB’s
responsibility was to review that. He indicated that a bi-review between the ARB and the PAC would put
a censorship level on the artist, which he did not want to do. He thought the applicant should find
another way to do their public art, that the ARB wanted to see the design. He added that perhaps there
could be an ad hoc design review.
Board Member Adcock voiced that it could be public art but it should return to the ARB with the
complete elevation design, including the public art.
Board Member Baltay did not support reviewing the work of the PRC.
Board Member Adcock agreed.
Board Member Baltay gave an analogy of the ARB reviewing a sign for architectural merit, not the
content. He suggested the artist be brought on as a member of the design team to present the design to
the ARB. He insisted on full review and approval of such an element.
Chair Rosenberg thought it was appropriate to specify this be a screen installation of artwork fitting a
border.
Board Member Adcock agreed with the portrayed elevation, but the execution needed to be
determined.
Applicant Conley did not believe the artist was allowed to be a member of the design team as the art
would be included as part of the public art requirement.
Assistant Director Armer suggested that an ARB member attend the PAC meeting on this item to provide
perspective on the impact to the façade.
Chair Rosenberg asked what the minimum requirement was for public art on this project. She asked if
the area proposed for the public art was the screen in the front and the screen on the side.
Senior Planner Kallas answered that the public art requirement was located in Chapter 2.26 of the City
Code and was the same requirement that applied to every project. In recent years, applicants had
typically chosen to pay the in-lieu fee, which she explained.
Applicant Conley responded that only the street-facing component was part of the public art
requirement. The side screen would be included if there was room in the budget.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 43
Page 16 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Senior Planner Kallas indicated that the PRC would consider appropriateness of the materials, textures,
color, and design, and she expected the building architecture to be considered.
Board Member Hirsch questioned if the language could be expanded to include the ARB.
Senior Planner Kallas replied that the language could not be changed, that it was within the purview of
the PRC and she thought they would address the art interplaying with the architecture.
Board Member Baltay asked if there were architects on the PRC.
Senior Planner Kallas did not know if there are architects on the PRC.
Assistant Director Armer did not know the composition of the PRC, but such had been considered on
previous projects and there was restriction in the ability to bring it back to the ARB. She recommended
that the ARB’s suggestions in terms of size and compatibility with the building be shared with the PRC.
Public art on the front of a building façade had a separate review process.
Board Member Hirsch remarked that there had to be a relationship among the PAC’s decision and their
selection of an artist, ARB, and the architect.
Board Member Adcock questioned if the architect could influence the art developed.
Applicant Conley answered that there would be coordination with several design team members for
structural, etc., requirements. If asked, she would provide her opinion on the compatibility of the piece
with the building in order to pass the PAC’s requirements.
Chair Rosenberg stated that she had not heard any major objections to the project. The issue was the
front façade being screening, which impacted the architecture of the building. She thought the ARB was
comfortable with the building with the screen as shown, and she questioned how to move forward.
Board Member Baltay suggested that this not be public art but part of the building and that it return to
the full ARB or a subcommittee to complete the design and that meeting the public art requirement be
left up to the applicant and staff.
Chair Rosenberg would probably feel comfortable moving forward if the art piece was within certain
parameters. The screen was part of the architecture, not the art, and it might be useful to find another
place for the art.
Board Member Adcock mentioned that it was architecture and art.
Chair Rosenberg indicated that it was a philosophical question as to when it stopped being art and
started being architecture and vice versa, which she did not think would be answered at this meeting.
Board Member Baltay considered this to be architecture to be reviewed and approved as such.
Board Member Adcock asked if conditioning the approval to say the public art would be part of the
architecture would put the applicant in a difficult place.
Historic Planner/ARB liaison Switzer commented that if there were concerns with the design proposed
or a lack of understanding of the public art and how it would interact with the design that an option
would be to review the proposal without the screening or the screening being replaced with something
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 44
Page 17 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
permanent and to have a conversation geared toward what findings the ARB would have to make. The
public art component was outside the ARB’s purview.
Chair Rosenberg did not think there were objections to the screen as presented or the ARB seeing the
art piece to ensure it would be within compliance. It was not fully designed at this time, so she wanted it
to return to the ARB to make sure it would be architecturally consistent. Although, if that would
encroach on the PAC or if there were legal ramifications, that would be problem. There was an option to
approve it without the screens, which was not being presented at this meeting.
Applicant Conley did not think the building would be built without the screen. She requested that the
building be approved with the Arktura screen as proposed.
Chair Rosenberg questioned if a condition of approval could be including the screen as designed but
allowing it to return to the ARB with an ad hoc or with an art piece. She wanted the screen to be a
minimum standard but allow for flexibility in the future.
Senior Planner Kallas remarked that the ARB would review the location of the public art, so it would be
reasonable to say that the filling of the frame would be a requirement, and if that substantially changed,
it could return to the ARB as being consistent with the planning entitlement approval. However, the
density of the art may not be within the ARB’s purview.
Chair Rosenberg thought there may be a maximum density concern.
Assistant Director Armer understood that there needed to be some kind of screening to comply with the
build-to requirements.
Vice Chair Chen stated that the element was projected in the front setback and asked if it was only
allowed when defined as artwork.
Senior Planner Kallas answered that the frame included an overhang of the roof, which projected into
the front setback, but the screen itself was proposed at the front setback line and it would not project.
Vice Chair Chen queried if there would be an exception for encroachment into the front setback.
Senior Planner Kallas remarked that the roof overhang and frame would not extend more than four feet.
There was a general exception in Code 1840.
Board Member Hirsch indicated that there were many color choices that could disturb the façade of the
building.
Chief Assistant Attorney Caio Arellano appreciated the concern between what would be an architectural
feature and how it would become public art. He noted there were provisions defining public art, and he
read Section 3 iii in Ordinance 5226, which acknowledged there would be a gray area. One way to
determine how much of the feature would be architectural versus what would be public art would be to
look at the façade in terms of performance or material standards, which could be included in the
recommendation and could be forwarded to the artist. He thought staff was resistant to having the
artist’s product return to the ARB for additional feedback. He suggested the ARB concentrate on
performance criteria around material choices and the effects of livability within the building.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 45
Page 18 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Assistant Director Armer added that functionality criteria could potentially be included in the conditions
of approval.
Board Member Baltay suggested this be classified as part of the building, not as public art, so an ad hoc
committee could verify the architect’s design. He noted that there were many buildings with such
screening. He indicated that the artist should not design the screening façade due to there being many
important technical architectural elements. If the artist was to be part of the design team, it would not
be considered public art.
Board Member Adcock did not want to put parameters on the artist. The panel would need structural
and architectural design support, so it would become part of the architecture of the building and would
be part of ARB’s purview. This could be approved with the screen design intent, but the artist could
come up with something that may not be approved.
Board Member Hirsch considered this to be part of the building, not a separate art piece.
Board Member Adcock asked what the applicant intended for the diagonal lines with the panels.
Applicant Conley thought there were provisions in the Public Art Code stating that the design team may
participate for structural and electrification purposes. Concerning the panels, she shared an image of
what they were considering. She appreciated the comment about vertigo and was something she would
research.
Senior Planner Kallas stated she would look further into provisions in the code concerning the design
team’s participation related to structural and electrification purposes. She mentioned that the art
needed to be structurally sound and who would be involved in that would be determined as part of the
public art process.
Chair Rosenberg opposed there being diagonal lines on the façade.
MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to recommend approval of the project as presented with the
following additions: 1) Add a sentence to the end of condition of approval Number 20 stating that the
front transparency screening on the front façade would not be considered public art. 2) The design for
the transparency screening on the front of the building go to an ad hoc committee for approval. 3) The
fiber cement panels go to the same ad hoc committee for review and approval. Chair Rosenberg
seconded the motion.
Board Member Adcock suggested an amendment of not having the small square window on the
backside.
Board Member Baltay would be happy to send that to the ad hoc committee. He wanted there to be
greater consistency of the fenestration patterning on the south side.
Board Member Hirsch questioned if the all the façades, the window patterning, and the rear building
elevation had been looked at and if it had all been deemed acceptable. He addressed the glass railings
versus the metal railings and thought the north and south sides should match and suggested the topic
go to a subcommittee for consistency. He preferred they be glass, but he would accept them being
metal.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 46
Page 19 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Board Member Baltay stated that work needed to be done as it related to the large windows in front of
the kitchen sink and the doorway. The ad hoc committee reviewing the configuration and placement of
all the windows could be a condition of approval.
Chair Rosenberg did not object to there being a combination of glass and metal railings.
Board Member Adcock agreed with the railings being consistent. She preferred metal railings for easy
maintenance. She pointed out that the balcony railings were being discussed, not the railings on the
south elevation at the curve, which would be solid panels.
Board Member Baltay moved that a condition of approval be that all balcony railings be a consistent
material, which the ad hoc committee would return to the PRC for verification.
Chair Rosenberg seconded.
Historic Planner/ARB liaison Switzer noted that the motion perhaps had a list of extensive changes to
the structure, so he wanted to be cognizant of the review process and what that might mean for the
applicant.
Board Member Baltay stated that the intent was for decorative elements or shifting windows, not
extensive changes.
Board Member Hirsch was happy with the landscaping, but he noted that it had not been discussed.
Vice Chair Chen remarked that there had not been many comments related to the landscaping at the
last meeting, and she did not believe many revisions were made.
Chair Rosenberg asked how removing diagonal lines from the Equitone panel should be phrased in the
motion.
Board Member Baltay wanted the architect to consider the design pattern of the Equitone panels and
for it to go to the ad hoc committee. He was comfortable with the landscaping as presented.
Vice Chair Chen provided a friendly amendment to have full-height glazing in the dining room on the
ground floor. She wanted to connect the indoor/outdoor experience.
Board Member Baltay suggested window and exterior door sizes and configurations be reviewed. He
suggested considering access doors from the dining room to the rear yard.
Chair Rosenberg explained why she opposed having full-height glazing in the dining room on the ground
floor. Due to the resident population, she wanted doors to look like doors and windows to look like
windows. She addressed security issues with access doors from the dining room to the rear yard, so she
was hesitant to require indoor/outdoor space to the back yard if there were reasonable parameters to
not do that.
Board Member Adcock did not think conditions should be put on indoor/outdoor space.
Board Member Hirsch felt the dining room was okay as it was.
Board Member Baltay and Chair Rosenberg accepted the friendly amendment as it was presented by
staff on the screen.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 47
Page 20 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
Chair Rosenberg and Board Member Hirsch volunteered to sit on the ad hoc.
Board Member Adcock recused herself from Item Number 4.
[The Board took an eight-minute break]
4. 3950 Fabian Way [24PLN‐00263]: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. Request for Minor Board
Level Architectural Review for Exterior Modifications to an Existing 32,500‐Square‐ Foot,
Two‐Story Commercial Building. The Project Includes Revisions to the Facade, Site Modifications,
and Demolition of a Portion on the North End of the Existing Building and Construction of a New
Approximately 4,200‐Square‐Foot Addition to the North Side. The Project Also Includes a Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Change of Use to Private Education to Accommodate The Girls'
Middle School. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. For More Information
Contact the Project Planner, Steven Switzer at Steven.Switzer@Cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Rosenberg introduced the item and announced that staff recommended the ARB review and
provide initial comments. No design decision would be made at this meeting. She asked if there were
disclosures related to visiting the site and all voiced aye that they visited the site. She noted that all
Board members knew Board Member Adcock who worked at the staff office.
Board Member Baltay disclosed that he had visited the site yesterday and that he was friends with the
architect.
Vice Chair Chen had no disclosure.
Historic Planner/ Project Planner Steven Switzer provided some background on the process and the
anticipated entitlements for the project. The second round for plans had been submitted last week,
which were included in the materials the Board had at this meeting and addressed some of the
comments from the first review. Topics for discussion included consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code, architectural design and site planning, circulation and parking, and play spaces.
He discussed and displayed slides related to project location, the site plan, the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning requirements, the floor plan, the play spaces, the landscape plan, and building elevations and
façades. This meeting did not require a formal recommendation but was instead to provide initial
comments to the applicant.
Applicant Christine Fairless shared why the proposal was critical to the Girls’ Middle School (GMS). This
would allow them to own the school building. The project had been designed with neighbors in mind.
They had mailed a letter to each adjacent resident in September.
Applicant Monique Wood shared a photo of the existing building. The extent of demolition was
currently a two-story space. The proposed addition was a single-story space approximately the same
square footage as the demolition. She discussed the path of travel for traffic. They were proposing that
the main entrance be on the northern end. She showed a rendering of the building and detailed the
materials and colors that would be used.
Applicant Sang Eun Lee outlined and displayed the plan for the first and second floors.
Applicant Georgia Leung discussed the landscaping and supplied slides.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 48
Page 21 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no requests to speak.
Board Member Baltay asked about how many folks arrived by bicycle each day.
Applicant Fairless thought about 15 arrived by bicycle, which may increase to 25 or so at the new
location.
Vice Chair Chen asked if the exterior bike parking was for teachers.
Applicant Wood responded that the exterior bike parking was for students.
Chair Rosenberg inquired if the woodshop and/or the metal ceramic buildings had garages or just
double doors and if there were two components to the woodshop with one being fenced off within the
structure and if there would be an exhaust system and if the same would apply to the metal ceramic
area. She asked what the depth of patio space would be going out of the makerspace garage to the
landscape fence, if the staff area in the corner was next to the art center and adjacent to the downstairs
offices, if the student center had a rollup door, if art had an outdoor space, if the library had walls, why
two offices were shown in green and others in blue, what the study nooks were for, if there was a
sidewalk or a bike path or if bicyclists needed to go in the flow of traffic; if there was a designation for
crossing over the bike path to the outdoor picnic area; if a lot of traffic was expected from the back side
of Fabian; where transformers and trash would be located; how many parking spaces would be needed
for staff; and if there would be an overhang at the school entrance.
Applicant Wood answered that the only rollup door was in the makerspace. She explained what the
study nooks were for, which would contain benches and maybe a little seating area. There was not a
sidewalk for bicyclists, which she stated was a good point. There was currently no designation for
crossing over the bike path to the outdoor picnic area. Fabian had a connection to Oregon Expressway,
so there may be a lot of traffic from the back side. Trash would be at the northwest corner of the
property, and transformers existed at the western side of the building within the outdoor workshop
area. They calculated the required number of parking spaces to be 38, and the remainder would be used
for school shuttles, visitors, and overflow.
Applicant Lee explained that there needed to be a quiet room for the woodshop to impede sound
traveling. There would be an exhaust system. Regarding the metal ceramic area, there would be a
building brace frame in between to be used for storage. The depth of patio space going out of the
makerspace garage to the landscape fence would be about 25 feet. The staff area in the corner would
be next to the art center and adjacent to the downstairs offices. The student center would have a rollup
door. Art would not have outside access. The library would have no walls but there would be
bookshelves as faculty wanted it to be open and the heart of the campus. It was a mistake that two
offices were shown in green and the others in blue. The school entrance would have an overhang of
about 12 feet deep.
Board Member Hirsch asked how many students would be picked up by a driver, if there were plans to
pick up on the street, if a larger bicyclist population had been allowed for, how many students attended
the school, and if there would be large busses for field trips. Taking busses into account, he requested
that a larger sidewalk area be considered. He asked why the sidewalk dead ended and if the southeast
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 49
Page 22 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
side of the building was available for teacher or user entry. He noted that the sidewalk dead ending
seemed dangerous and asked that it be considered. He noted that the school would not have a front
office. He asked why the floor plan was constricted and then widened out, if it was for student flow.
Since the windows were not to be replaced, he asked what would happen if a wall should be placed on
an exterior line of windows. He thought that was a design element that needed to be worked out.
Applicant Fairless answered that they had about five vans that would collect about 60 students. The rest
would bike or arrive by vehicle, and there was a good number of carpools. She would have to do the
math on the total number of vehicles. They had planned for van and car circulation to coexist, and what
they planned was exactly how it was done at their current site. They had not planned to pick up on the
street as it was not a good idea. A larger bike population had been considered. They currently had 186
students and expected that to increase a little at the new site, which they would have capacity for. For
field trips, a bus would pick up and offload students at the front of the building, which she thought
would occur on the street. She thought the driveway could be widened to accommodate a bus.
Applicant Lee explained why the sidewalk dead-ended. Regarding the southeast side of the building
being available for teacher or user entry, the building would be locked during school hours but the gates
would be open for staff. Teachers could come through any entry. The students would enter through the
northwest side of the building. She explained what they would do if a wall was to be placed on an
exterior line of windows.
Applicant Wood stated that there would be a reception desk in the upper right-hand corner of the
library. She stated that they were trying to maintain as much of the building as they could and to not
change out windows. A wall being placed on an exterior line of windows had the most potential to
happen with the small offices.
Applicant Wood answered that the floor plan was constricted and then widened out for student flow.
Board Member Baltay felt that a variation in the fenestration would be perfectly fine.
Board Member Hirsch asked if the column line at that point was outside. He questioned if the major
demo was to be on the north side, if the solid glass element on the materials board would be part of the
gym, what the doors would roll up into, and if there would be use of the color scheme in the existing
building.
Applicant Wood confirmed that the column line at that point was outside. There were pilasters coming
down to the ground as shown on A2.01, which was true all the way around the building. The major
demo was to be on the north side. The solid glass element on the materials board would be part of the
gym at a higher level, and only the doors would be at ground level. The top of the blue plaster would be
the top of the overhead door with a window system above that. They were still trying to confirm if the
door would be folding or rolling, but it would be an overhead door allowing for free open space, and it
would be a glazed door. The intent was to have free open space at the two folding or rolling door
locations. As for the color scheme, the neutral tone would be consistent between the existing and the
new building. The overhang would add color to the existing perimeter.
Historic Planner/ Project Planner Switzer provided an image of the elements Board Member Hirsh was
referring to.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 50
Page 23 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Vice Chair Chen asked why the trash enclosure was close to the entry instead of the bike parking and if
there would be dedicated restrooms for males.
Applicant Wood discussed why the trash enclosure was located close to the entry instead of the bike
parking.
Applicant Lee replied that there was to be a single restroom on the second floor designated for
teachers.
Applicant Fairless added that the adult restrooms would most likely be all gender in addition to one
single stall restroom.
Chair Rosenberg asked if there would be one all gender restroom on the second floor and if there would
be an all gender restroom on the first floor.
Applicant Lee responded that there would be one all gender restroom on the second floor. All adult
restrooms would be all gender, and the teacher restroom would be near the elevator. The adult
restrooms would be separated from student restrooms.
Board Member Baltay, at a high level, supported the project the way it was presented. He thought the
bicycle parking should be close to the building entrance and that the trash area and the bicycle parking
should be switched around. He believed there may be a way to park bicycles in the front setback. He felt
consideration should be given to the sidewalks and the flow of people walking to and from the parking
lot.
Board Member Hirsch liked what had been presented, and he loved the project. He was especially keen
on the corners of the upper floor being opened up. He thought there should be skylights in each corner
to provide borrowed light into the various rooms below and a lean-to-type skylight around the elevator
to provide light to the stairwell. He felt the color scheme around the gym was fantastic and suggested it
be continued around the entire building. He proposed that there be a bike rack at the front of the
building, which could be enclosed, and that the sidewalk encompass the building.
Vice Chair Chen supported bike parking being close to the entrance.
Chair Rosenberg summarized that the Board considered the bike parking to be the biggest problem, and
she suggested that parking spaces 44 through 46 be converted to bike parking. She felt the trash area
should be left where it was proposed. She was in support of skylights. She did not know if the hallway
was the best place for the kiln. She addressed the faculty lounge and a classroom on the second floor
overlooking the triangular roof/balcony and the classroom having a door exiting out onto that. She
requested consideration be given to there being classroom door to that, it being a roof, or the faculty
lounge taking over the balcony. She voiced that the Board also felt that the sidewalk should not dead
end into traffic. She stated it needed to end in a better way if it was not going to encompass the
building. She requested that the applicant consider Board Member Hirsch’s comment related to the
color scheme.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas
Chair Rosenberg announced there were no minutes to approve. She asked if the ARB Awards would be
addressed soon.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 51
Page 24 of 24
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 11/21/24
Historic Planner Switzer replied that it would be brought forward soon and they could target it being
agendized in January.
Adjournment
Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 1:50 p.m.
Item 4
Attachment A Minutes of
November 21, 2024
Packet Pg. 52