HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-06 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 06, 2025
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
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 164 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN‐00287]:
Recommendation on a Minor Board Level Architectural Review Application to Allow
Façade Modifications to an Existing 10,150 Square Foot Office Building. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning
District: Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts
(CD‐C(GF)(P)).
3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Recommendation
on Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to
Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to
Construct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential
Condominium Units. Environmental Assessment: Streamlined Review in Accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC
(Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner,
Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 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, February 06, 2025Council 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
ACTION ITEMS
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three
(3) minutes per speaker.
2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 164 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN‐00287]:
Recommendation on a Minor Board Level Architectural Review Application to Allow
Façade Modifications to an Existing 10,150 Square Foot Office Building. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning
District: Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts
(CD‐C(GF)(P)).
3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Recommendation
on Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to
Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to
Construct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential
Condominium Units. Environmental Assessment: Streamlined Review in Accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC
(Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner,
Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 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, February 06, 2025Council 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 ItemsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 164 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN‐00287]:Recommendation on a Minor Board Level Architectural Review Application to AllowFaçade Modifications to an Existing 10,150 Square Foot Office Building. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ZoningDistrict: Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts(CD‐C(GF)(P)).3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Recommendationon Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel toPlanned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and toConstruct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 ResidentialCondominium Units. Environmental Assessment: Streamlined Review in Accordance withCEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC(Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner,Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.orgAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 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, February 06, 2025Council 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 ItemsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 164 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN‐00287]:Recommendation on a Minor Board Level Architectural Review Application to AllowFaçade Modifications to an Existing 10,150 Square Foot Office Building. EnvironmentalAssessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ZoningDistrict: Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts(CD‐C(GF)(P)).3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN‐00095]: Recommendationon Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel toPlanned Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and toConstruct a New Three‐Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 ResidentialCondominium Units. Environmental Assessment: Streamlined Review in Accordance withCEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC(Community Commercial). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner,Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.orgAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 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: February 6, 2025
Report #: 2501-4008
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. 5
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS
The following items are tentative and subject to change:
MEETING DATE TOPICS
February 20, 2025 ARB 2025 Design Awards Discussion
180 El Camino Real Suite 136B: Delarosa exterior upgrades
RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS
No new ARB projects were submitted since the last ARB meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects
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 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
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
2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair
January February March April May June
July August September October November December
Item 1
Attachment A: 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 #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architect
ural
Review
9/16/2
0
20PLN-
00202
250
Hamilt
on 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
Architect
ural
Review
Zone
Change
12/21/
21
21PLN-
00341
24PLN-
00239
660
Univer
sity
680
Univer
sity
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
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 8
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architect
ural
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
Camin
o 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
Architect
ural
Review
7/19/2
3
23PLN-
00181
824
San
Antoni
o
Road
Housing
–
16 senior
units, 12
convales
cent
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
Amendm
ent
8/9/23 23PLN-
00202
4075
El
Camin
o Way
Commer
cial
16
convales
cent
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
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 9
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architect
ural
Review
1/10/2
4
24PLN-
00012
3265
El
Camin
o 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
PTC 1/15 Rec.
approval 3-2
with two
additional
conditions.
CC tentatively
2/10.
Major
Architect
ural
Review
3/6/24 24PLN-
00064
640
Waver
ley
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)
ARB 1/16 Rec.
approval
Minor
Architect
ural
Review
3/7/24 24PLN-
00066
180 El
Camin
o Real
Restaura
nt
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
NOI Sent 4/10.
Pending
Resubmittal.
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 10
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
existing acrylic and new metal awning at rear to
replace existing fabric awning. New signage and
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
replace existing light fixtures. Environmental
Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CC)
Major
Architect
ural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/02/2
4
24PLN-
00100
24PLN-
00223
(Map)
156
Califor
nia
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 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)
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
submitted
11/21/24
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Adcock)
Deemed
Complete
12/22/24
Supplementary
info req.
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 11/07/24
Continued
ARB 2/6/25
meeting
scheduled
Major
Architect
ural
Review –
4/23/2
4
24PLN-
00120
762
San
Antoni
o
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-
NOI Sent
5/23/2024.
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Chen)
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 11
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
Builder’s
Remedy
story multi-family residential building containing
198 rental
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
apartments. This is 100% Residential Project.
Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD.
Streamlin
ed
Housing
Develop
ment
Review
5/28/2
4
24PLN-
00152
24PLN-
00023
(Prelim)
4335-
4345
El
Camin
o
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
Architect
ural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/2
4
24PLN-
00161
24PLN-
00048 (SB
330)
3781
El
Camin
o 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 proposed. Environmental
Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-
30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy:
24PLN-00048)
NOI Sent
7/10/2024.
Resubmittal on
11/22/24
Major
Architect
ural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/2
4
24PLN-
00162
24PLN-
00047 (SB
330)
3606
El
Camin
o 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
Deemed
Complete
12/25/24
Supplementary
info req.
Major
Architect
ural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
7/17/2
4
24PLN-
00184
24PLN-
00232
(Map)
3400
El
Camin
o 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
NOI Sent
8/16/2024 and
9/12/2024;
Pending
Resubmittal.
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 12
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
residential units and 192 hotel rooms.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning
District: various (SB330)
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
Minor
Architect
ural
Review &
Condition
al Use
Permit
9/24/2
4
24PLN-
00263
3950
Fabian
Way
Private
Educatio
n
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
CEQA Pending.
Streamlin
ed
Housing
Develop
ment
Review
10/08/
24
24PLN-
00280
3997
Fabian
Way
Residenti
al
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
Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site &
State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-
Application: 24PLN-00111)
NOI sent
1/16/25
Master
Sign
Program
11/7/2
4
24PLN-
00322
340
Portag
e 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.
NOI sent
1/09/25
Minor
Architect
ural
Review
12/03/
24
24PLN-
00339
2280
El
Camin
o Real
Restaura
nt
Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the
exterior and interior remodel of the existing
Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the
exterior of the building include the removal of
the mansard roof, installation of new parapets,
new finishes and branding panels. No increase
in building footprint.
NOI sent
1/22/25
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 13
Permit
Type Filed Permit #Addr
ess Type Work Description Status/Notes
Site and
Design &
Condition
al Use
Permit
12/8/2
4
24PLN-
00356
24PLN-
00357
(Map)
2100
Geng
Rd
Housing
–
137
Units
Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design
& Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the
transformation of an existing underutilized
business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a
new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-
family townhome units and community space.
Project site totals approximately 11-acres.
NOI sent
1/24/25
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending
ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 6
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: February 6, 2025
Report #: 2501-3966
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 164 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN-00287]: Recommendation on
a Minor Board Level Architectural Review Application to Allow Façade Modifications to an
Existing 10,150 Square Foot Office Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Downtown Commercial with
Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CD-C(GF)(P)).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action:
1. Recommend approval of the proposed project 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application is a request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow façade
modifications to an existing three-story office building located at 164 Hamilton Avenue. The
project includes removal and replacement of all exterior materials on the front façade,
repainting the existing cement plaster siding on the rear and side façades, replacement of all
existing single-pane exterior windows and doors, replacement of the existing metal awnings
and metal guardrails at the front façade and replacement of the existing exterior lighting. The
existing building’s square footage will remain the same. A location map is included in
Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment G.
This report summarizes staff’s analysis of the project’s consistency with relevant plans, policies,
guidelines, and the required Architectural Review findings for approval. Overall, staff finds that
the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, applicable guidelines, Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), and findings for approval and therefore recommends that the ARB
recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Development Services. The
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 6
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA
guidelines Section 15301.
BACKGROUND
Project Information
Owner:Orpheus Chamber Orchestra
Architect:Feldman Architecture
Representative:Yulia Korneeva
Legal Counsel:N/A
Address:164 Hamilton Avenue
Neighborhood:University South
Lot Dimensions & Area:50 feet wide x 90 feet long; 4,500 square foot lot size
Housing Inventory Site:Yes; four units
Located w/in a Plume:No
Protected/Heritage Trees:None; Regulated Trees Exist in Public Right-of-Way
Historic Resource(s):No
Existing Improvement(s):10,151 square foot building; three stories; built 2006
Existing Land Use(s):Business Office
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: CD-C (GF)(P): Hotel
West: CD-C (GF)(P): Restaurant/ Eating and Drinking
Establishment
East: CD-C (GF)(P): Private parking lot/ Real Estate Office
South: CD-C (GF)(P): Yoga Studio
Aerial View of Property:
Source: Google Maps
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 6
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation:CD-C (GF)(P)
Comp. Plan Designation:CC (Community Commercial)
Yes Yes Yes
Baylands Master
Plan/Guidelines
(2008/2005)
El Camino Guidelines
(1976)
Housing Development
Project
Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines (1993
X South EL Camino Real
Guidelines (2002)
Utilizes Chapter 18.24 –
Objective Standards
Individual Review
Guidelines (2005)
Within 150 feet of
Residential Use or
District
Context-Based Design
Criteria applicable
SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence
Area
SOFA Phase 2 (2003)
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council:None
Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC):None
Historic Resources Board (HRB):None
Architectural Review Board (ARB):None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal seeks to replace the existing stone cladding on the ground floor with a neutral/beige
brick veneer. The existing pre-formed metal paneling at the front façade will be replaced with a
smooth cement plaster finish in a warm gray color to complement the brick. The entry area and
storefront windows at ground level will be wrapped with a medium bronze, mottled finish,
aluminum paneling. The existing metal and glass canopy at the ground level as well as the metal
louvered canopy at the third-floor level will be replaced with a thin aluminum plate, painted
medium bronze to match the new windows and doors. All existing single-pane windows and
doors will be upgraded to an aluminum dual-pane storefront system. The existing wall-mounted
exterior lighting sconces at the front façade will also be replaced with sconces in oil rubbed
bronze finish. Lastly, the rear façade and side façades will be re-painted to match the front
building façade.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 17
Item No. 2. Page 4 of 6
Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested:
Architectural Review – Minor Board Level (AR): The process for evaluating this type of
application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and
recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for
action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is
appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are
evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to
approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.
The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B.
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project site is located in the University South neighborhood, two blocks southwest of Palo
Alto City Hall and within a half-mile radius of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. The site is surrounded
by retail and commercial uses, including an eight-story hotel building to the left (east), a yoga
studio to the right (west), and a restaurant across Hamilton Avenue. A private parking lot with
vehicular and bicycle parking is located at the rear of the property with access from High Street.
ANALYSIS
Staff has analyzed the proposed project for consistency with relevant plans, policies, guidelines,
and regulations adopted by the City and finds the project to be consistent with these as well as
the ARB findings, as discussed herein.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1
ARB Finding #1 requires the design to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the
project site is Community Commercial, which is reserved for major commercial centers that
provide a variety of services. The project does not include a change to the existing use, business
office, which is consistent with this land use designation.
On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore
fulfills the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B.
Zoning Compliance2
Attachment D summarizes the project’s consistency with applicable development standards set
forth in the PAMC. As shown in Attachment D, the proposed project complies with all applicable
codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The project does not include any
1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
Item No. 2. Page 5 of 6
changes to the floor area, circulation, or parking for the existing building, therefore multi-modal
access and parking are not discussed further.
Consistency with Application Findings
The draft findings for approval of the proposed project are provided in Attachment B. The
project meets all applicable findings for Architectural Review approval. Specifically, the project
refreshes the visual elements of the building by replacing the existing stone cladding on the
ground floor with a neutral-colored brick veneer. Brick veneer can be consistently found at
neighboring building façades and makes the exterior of the building blend well with the
surrounding context of the immediate block and the neighborhood at large. The existing pre-
formed metal paneling at the front façade will be replaced with a smooth cement plaster finish
in a warm gray color to complement the brick. The rear and side façades will be re-painted and
refreshed to match the color of the front façade. The proposal includes wrapping the entry area
and storefront windows at ground level with aluminum paneling, medium bronze in color with
a slight mottled finished. This will help add dimension and visual interest to the exterior,
particularly at street level.
In addition to the materials and finishes, the existing metal and glass canopy at the ground level
and the metal louvered canopy at the third-floor level will be replaced. Both proposed canopies
will be made of a thin aluminum plate, painted medium bronze to match the new windows and
doors. The wall-mounted sconces at the front façade will be replaced with new oil rubbed bronze
finish sconces from the Alva Architectural Lighting Line. This ambient lighting will be elegant,
durable, and low in lumens. In accordance with the PAMC it will be directed downward to reduce
light impact.
The proposed improvements focus on modernizing the building’s exterior façade to enhance its
visual appeal, better integrate it into the neighborhood, and enhance the building’s energy
performance. Staff believes these elements will provide a harmonious transition in character
between the proposed building and the surrounding buildings.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS
The PAMC requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to
owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in
advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on January
24, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 23,
2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. As of this writing of this report, no project-
related public comments were received.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. In accordance with Section 15301 Existing Facilities,
CEQA is exempt for projects wherein the proposed activity will involve negligible or no
expansion of the existing use. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt under CEQA.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 19
Item No. 2. Page 6 of 6
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
In addition to the recommended action, the ARB may:
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings
Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval
Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table
Attachment E: Correspondence
Attachment F: Applicant’s Project Description
Attachment G: Project Plans
Report Author & Contact Information
Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner
(650) 838-2806
nishita.kandikuppa@cityofpaloalto.org
ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
steven.switzer@cityofpaloalto.org
5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 20
Item 2
Attachment A - Location
Map
Packet Pg. 21
6
5
3
0
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
164 Hamilton Avenue
24PLN-00287
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design
guides.
The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality
design compatible with surrounding development.
Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to
Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation
for the site is Regional/Community Commercial
(CC).
The project proposes to continue the general
business office use supported in the
Regional/community commercial land use
designation.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled
structures are compatible with the neighborhood
and adjacent structures.
The proposal seeks to refresh the visual elements
of the building by replacing the existing stone
cladding on the ground floor with a neutral
colored brick veneer. Brick veneer can be
consistently found at neighboring building façades
and makes the exterior of the building blend well
with the surrounding context.
Policy L-4.2: Encourage the upgrading and
revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that
is compatible with the character of surrounding
neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing
small, local businesses.
The improvements focus on modernizing the
building’s exterior façade to enhance its visual
appeal and building’s energy performance. The
modifications are proposed on an existing office
building and would not displace any existing retail
uses or small businesses.
Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that
contribute to retail vitality in all Centers.
Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances
the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas.
Include trees and landscaping.
The existing tall windows along Hamilton Avenue
are proposed to remain. The proposed entry area
will be wrapped in aluminum paneling with a
mottled finish, adding depth, character, and visual
interest at the ground level of the building. The
Item 2
Attachment B - Draft ARB
Findings
Packet Pg. 22
6
5
3
0
subject property is not a corner lot.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create
coherent development patterns and enhance city
streets and public spaces.
The proposed design includes the use of high-
quality materials and appropriate construction
techniques that follow the Green Building
checklist and all applicable building codes. The
proposal incorporates colors, textures, and other
details that are compatible with the Downtown
Urban Design Guidelines and will enhance the look
and feel of the block and neighborhood.
Business and Economics Element
Goal B-1: Businesses in Palo Alto that contribute
to economic vitality enhance the city’s physical
environment, promote municipal revenues, and
provide local services.
The project updates the façade of an existing
office building, consistent with this policy.
The project as conditioned provides a variety of architectural styles and is consistent with the
surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally
consistent.
The project is zoned CD-C (GF)(P). The CD-C Zone is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for
the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and
regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service
needs. The pedestrian shopping (P) combining district modifies the regulations of the downtown
commercial district where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display
windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an
economically healthy retail district. The project is consistent with the design standards set forth in the
(P) combining district in that the project retains the existing ground floor windows that are consistent
with this district and maintains transparent glazing on these windows with no ground floor coverings.
The ground floor (GF) combining district modified the uses allowed in the commercial districts and
subdistricts to promote active, pedestrian-oriented uses, with a high level of transparency and visual
interest at the ground level. Although the ground floor office use is legal nonconforming within this
combining district, the project does not include any change to the existing use and is therefore allowed
to continue. The proposed modifications are consistent with the design intent for this district because it
maintains transparency to allow views in.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the
site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land
use designations,
Item 2
Attachment B - Draft ARB
Findings
Packet Pg. 23
6
5
3
0
a. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential
areas.
The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:
This finding can be made in the affirmative that the project provides a variety of architecture in a
simplified palette with differing visual elements. The proposed façade modifications provide appropriate
visual attention. The design is consistent, compatible, and harmonious with surrounding buildings. As
conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the finding in that it is consistent with the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. The subject property is surrounded by retail and commercial uses
and does not abut residential properties. The mass and scale of the building will remain unchanged.
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are
compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:
The proposal seeks to refresh the visual elements of the building by replacing the existing stone cladding
on the ground floor with a neutral colored brick veneer. Brick veneer can be consistently found at
neighboring building façades and makes the exterior of the building blend well with the surrounding
context of the immediate block and the neighborhood at large. Moreover, the smooth cement plaster
in warm gray color will complement the color and texture of the brick. All other finishes, textures and
colors including the paint color on the rear and sides will match the front façade creating a unified design
aesthetic.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and
providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle
access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated
signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project is consistent with Finding #4 because:
There is no direct vehicular access onto the site from Hamilton Avenue. The private parking lot is located
in the rear of the building and can be accessed via High Street. Given the subject property is located in
the Downtown, there is proper and continuous sidewalk connectivity in this neighborhood for
pedestrians. Hamilton Avenue does not have a dedicated bicycle lane but has sharrows painted as an
indication for bicyclists to share the road with vehicle drivers. The project does not modify circulation
for this site, which is already consistent with this finding.
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings,
is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought
resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
Item 2
Attachment B - Draft ARB
Findings
Packet Pg. 24
6
5
3
0
The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:
The project is consistent with the finding in that the project preserves the existing street trees located
along Hamilton Avenue. The project includes façade modifications and does not modify existing
landscaping elements.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:
In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for
CALGreen Mandatory. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project
will monitor construction waste management and comply with VOC limits set forth in CALGreen.
Item 2
Attachment B - Draft ARB
Findings
Packet Pg. 25
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
164 Hamilton Avenue
24PLN-00287
________________________________________________________________________
Planning Department
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "164 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA”, uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen
Portal on December 18, 2024, and stamped as approved on ____________, 2025, as modified by
these conditions of approval.
2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning,
Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this approval with conditions shall be printed on the second
page of the plans submitted for building permit.
4. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required to protect trees that are to
remain during construction.
5. SIGNAGE. This approval does not include any signage or modifications to the approved signs on
site. New signage or modifications to existing signage would be required to submit for a separate
review and approval by the Planning Department.
6. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine
substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final.
Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited
to; materials, fenestration, and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Nishita
Kandikuppa, to schedule this inspection.
7. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced, if
necessary, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester and Director of Planning.
8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties
and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its own choice.
Item 2
Attachment C - Draft
Conditions of Approval
Packet Pg. 26
9. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original
date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project
within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect.
A written request for a one-year extension shall be submitted prior to the expiration date in order
to be considered by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
Public Works
10. PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT OF CANOPY. The canopy is proposed over the public right of way on
Hamilton Avenue. Any encroachment over the public right of way shall require a permit from Public
Works Engineering prior to issuance of a building permit. Reach out to pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org
for more details.
11. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the
applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department.
Item 2
Attachment C - Draft
Conditions of Approval
Packet Pg. 27
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
164 Hamilton Avenue | 24PLN-00287
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT)
Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Building Setback
Front Yard None Required 0 0
Rear Yard None Required 20 feet 20 feet
Interior Side Yard None Required 0 0
Street Side Yard None Required 0 0
Maximum Site Coverage
(building footprint)
None Required 3,388 square feet 3,388 square feet
Maximum Height 50 feet 44 feet 4 inches 44 feet 4 inches
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting one or more
residential zoning districts or a
residential PC district
Daylight plane height and
slope identical to those of
the most restrictive
residential zone abutting
the lot line
0 0
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
1.0:1 2.25:1
10,151 square feet
(existing legal non-
conforming)
2.25:1
10,151 square feet
(existing legal non-
conforming)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) for Hotels
1.0:1 0 0
Maximum Size of New on-
Residential Construction or
Expansion Projects
2.0:1
10,000 square feet
0 0
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
Exclusively Non-Residential Uses
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking
(within the Downtown Parking
Assessment District)
1/250 square feet of gross
floor area for a total of 40
spaces
3 spaces 3 spaces
No additional parking
is required under AB
2097.
Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 square feet for a
total of 4 spaces
9 spaces 9 spaces
Loading Space 1 space for 10,000-99,999
square feet
0 0
Item 2
Attachment D - Zoning
Comparison Table
Packet Pg. 28
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 29
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 30
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 31
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 32
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 33
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 34
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 35
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 36
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 37
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 38
Item 2
Attachment E -
Correspondence
Packet Pg. 39
Item 2
Attachment F - Applicants
Project Description
Packet Pg. 40
Item 2
Attachment F - Applicants
Project Description
Packet Pg. 41
Item 2
Attachment F - Applicants
Project Description
Packet Pg. 42
If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at
650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org
6
5
2
2
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to
Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via
the following online resources.
Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “164 Hamilton Ave” and click the address link
3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important
information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-
Planning/Projects/164-Hamilton-Avenue
Materials Boards:
Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing.
Item 2
Attachment G - Project
Plans
Packet Pg. 43
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 4
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: February 6, 2025
Report #: 2411-3798
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: Recommendation on
Applicant’s Request to Rezone the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned
Community/Planned Home Zoning, to Demolish a Surface Parking lot, and to Construct a New
Three-Story, 22,355 Square Foot Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units.
Environmental Assessment: Streamlined Review in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency). Zone District: CC (Community Commercial). For More
Information Please Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at
Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action:
1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and
subject to conditions of approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject project proposes to rezone the subject parcels, demolish the existing surface
parking lot on these parcels, and develop 10 condominium housing units arranged around a
central courtyard. The ARB previously reviewed the project on November 7, 2024. An earlier
staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to City
codes and policies; that report is available online1. A copy of the report without prior
attachments is available in Attachment E.
At the November 7, 2024, hearing, the ARB did not recommend any modifications to the
architectural design of the building. However, the draft CEQA analysis was not available for the
ARB to consider and therefore the ARB could not make a formal recommendation on the
project at the time. The CEQA analysis is now available and provided in a link in Attachment F.
1 Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 7, 2024 Staff Report:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/api/compilemeetingattachmenthistory/historyattachment/?historyId=b7aed
b25-306e-405e-bb55-0a58c0bd290b
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 44
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 4
The analysis evaluates the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the associated Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Report adopted in 2017.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval to rezone the subject properties from Commercial Community
(CC) to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ), to demolish the existing surface parking lot, and to
redevelop the site with a new multi-family residential development with 10 condominium units.
Two of the proposed units would be deed restricted as below market rate and sold at a rate
affordable to 80-100% Area Median Income (AMI).
The building would be three stories (38 feet, 9 inches tall) and 22,552 square feet with a
1.86:1.0 floor area ratio (FAR). The units would be organized around a common access court
that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access from Encina Avenue. A location map of the
project site is included as Attachment A.
As a PHZ application, the project requests to deviate from the CC development standards with
respect to setbacks, useable open space, landscaped open space, floor area ratio, and lot
coverage as detailed in the previous staff report in Attachment E. A link to the development
plans is provided in Attachment F.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2024, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is
available online.3 The previous staff report, without attachments, is included in Attachment E.
At the November 2024 hearing, the ARB made a motion to continue the project to a date
uncertain. Chair Rosenberg acknowledged that the motion was to allow time for the CEQA
analysis to be completed prior to returning to the board for a formal recommendation.
Boardmembers did not suggest any modifications to the design.
ANALYSIS
Staff finds this project continues to be consistent with relevant plans, policies, regulations and
the Architectural Review findings, as detailed in the previous staff report in Attachment E, as
there were no recommendations from the Board to modify the design and no notable changes
were proposed.
Consistency with Applicating Findings
As detailed in Attachment B, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly
the land use element, housing element, and business elements. With approval of the proposed
ordinance amending the zoning of the site as proposed, the project would be consistent with
the zoning ordinance. The project is appropriate to its context in terms of scale, massing, and
3 Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 7, 2024, Video Recording:
https://youtu.be/GXNKd9VWddc?si=qQ2UFZ4zGTsdscQH&t=7185
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 45
Item No. 3. Page 3 of 4
materials and enhances the area by providing residential uses adjacent to retail and other office
uses.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and
consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. This
project is also subject to Development Impact Fees, currently estimated at $770,376.55 plus the
Public Art fee.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH, AND COMMENTS
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at
least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily
Post on January 24, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing
occurred on January 22, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
Ellis Partners, operator of the Town & Country Village Shopping Center has continued to be a
vocal neighbor regarding this project. In their newest letter, they advocate for a more
collaborative approach to housing near Town & Country and discuss consideration of a future
housing project on their North parking lot. All previously received comments are included in
Attachment D.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the City has prepared a streamlined analysis,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183, of the project’s consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2014052101). The project will
incorporate all required mitigation measures from the Comprehensive Plan EIR and the City’s
standard conditions of approval. Overall, the findings of the 1583 checklist concludes that there
are no new or more significant impacts beyond what was previously assessed in the adopted
Comprehensive Plan EIR; therefore, further environmental analysis is not warranted.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may:
1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 46
Item No. 3. Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings
Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table
Attachment D: Correspondence
Attachment E: First ARB Hearing Staff Report, dated November 7, 2024, without Attachments
Attachment F: Link to Project Plans and Environmental Analysis
Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information
Emily Kallas, AICP, Senior Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2321
emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org steven.switzer@cityofpaloalto.org
5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 47
Item 3
Attachment A: 70 Encina
Location Map
Packet Pg. 48
Page 1 of 5
4
1
8
1
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT PC AND ARB FINDINGS
Planned Community Findings
Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the
application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development.
The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
The proposed project provides family-serving, ownership units. To achieve this on this particular property, the
applicant requires exceeding the allowable floor area, lot coverage, and reducing minimum setbacks. The project
is otherwise in compliance with Zoning district requirements.
Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in
public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as
appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community
district.
The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:
The primary public benefit for this project is additional housing units to assist the City in reaching their Regional
Housing Needs Assessment goals. The project proposes 10 condominium units, which are 2- and 3-bedrooms to
serve families. The project proposes 20% of the units to be designated Below Market Rate, including two
moderate income units.
Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district
shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and
potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:
This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as described further in Architectural Review
Finding #1 below. The adjacent use is the Town and Country Shopping Center, and across the street are 1-2 story
office and industrial buildings. It is also in the vicinity of the Live Moves Opportunity Center. One half of the project
site is a Housing Inventory Site with an anticipated capacity of 4 units. This project exceeds that by providing 10
total units.
Architectural Review Findings
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:
In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design
compatible with surrounding development.
Item 3
Attachment B: Draft PC
and ARB Findings
Packet Pg. 49
Page 2 of 5
4
1
8
1
Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to
Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
the site is Community Commercial.
This designation allows higher density multi-
family housing in a designation in appropriate
locations.
Land Use Element
Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban
service area should be compatible with its
surroundings and the overall scale and character
of the city to ensure a compact, efficient
development pattern.
This project proposes to redevelop an existing
parking lot into a ten unit condominium building.
The proposed three story height is appropriate to
the area that contains mostly one and two story
buildings with a 5-story building approximately
200 feet away.
Policy L-2.5 Support the creation of affordable
housing units for middle to lower income level
earners, such as City and
school district employees, as feasible.
This project includes two BMR units, which serve
as a public benefit to this PHZ application.
Policy L-2.11 Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate greenery and
natural features such as green
rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens.
The proposed building includes a central
courtyard with seven trees and perimeter planter
boxes with wall vines where feasible. The ARB has
recommended adding additional greenery as part
of their preliminary review. In response to this
the applicant added bulb outs.
Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site
planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public
spaces.
The proposed residential building will meet the
high-quality standards of the Architectural Review
Board before it is recommended for approval. The
proposed materials are high quality, but items
such as site circulation, private and public open
space, and privacy may need refinement.
Policy L-6.7 Where possible, avoid abrupt
changes in scale and density between residential
and non-residential areas and between
residential areas of different densities. To
promote compatibility and gradual transitions
between land uses, place zoning district
boundaries at mid-block locations rather than
along streets wherever possible.
This project would stand alone, surrounded by
parking lot for the immediate future. Some units
directly abut a parking aisle/delivery route, and is
approximately 25 feet from the nearest shopping
center building. The proposed three story height
is in scale with nearby buildings.
Program L2.4.4 Assess non-residential
development potential in the Community
Commercial, Service, Commercial and Downtown
Commercial Districts (CC, CS and CD) and the
Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), and
convert non-retail commercial FAR to residential
FAR, where appropriate. Conversion to
residential capacity should not be considered in
Town and Country Village.
Although this property is adjacent to Town and
Country, it does not include the conversion of
retail to residential, and therefore conforms with
this Program.
Item 3
Attachment B: Draft PC
and ARB Findings
Packet Pg. 50
Page 3 of 5
4
1
8
1
Policy L-4.12 Recognize and preserve Town and
Country Village as an attractive retail center
serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider
region. Future development at this site should
preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale
and architectural character while also improving
safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians and
increasing the amount of bicycle parking.
This property is not owned or leased by Town and
Country Village and the property owners are not
required to maintain the prior parking use. The
proposed development would not impact current
Town and Country Village amenities or character,
and Town and Country is expected to be able to
maintain their current operations.
The building includes sufficient short and long
term bicycle parking. However, this project
includes minimal pedestrian circulation in and
around the project site.
Policy L-4.13 In Town and Country Village,
encourage a vibrant retail environment and
urban greening.
This project could benefit from additional
screening landscaping between the residential
project and existing commercial uses.
Policy L-4.14 In Town and Country Village,
encourage improvement of pedestrian, bicycle
and auto circulation and landscaping
improvements, including maintenance of existing
oak trees and planting additional trees.
This project proposes to remove existing trees,
and replace them through a combination of on-
site trees and in-lieu payments.
As noted above, this project includes minimal
pedestrian circulation in and around the project
site.
Housing Element Policy 3.2 Provide adequate
sites, zoned at the appropriate densities and
development standards to facilitate both
affordable and market rate housing production.
One of the two CC-zoned properties is identified
as a Housing Inventory Site with a capacity of 4
units. This 10 unit housing project includes two
affordable units and eight market rate units.
Housing Element Policy 4.3 Implement
development standards, objective design
standards, and architectural and green building
standards that encourage new high-quality rental
and ownership housing.
This ownership project meets all applicable
development standards, objective design
standards, and architectural and green building
standards.
Policy B-6.6 Retain Town & Country Village as an
attractive, local-serving retail center
This property is adjacent to Town and Country,
and care should be taken to ensure that the
residential use does not disrupt the current
operations of the shopping center.
As a PHZ project, the zoning development standards are custom built for the building, and therefore this project
will be in compliance with zoning through the approval process. No other design guidelines or documents apply
to this location.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general
community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and
the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use
Item 3
Attachment B: Draft PC
and ARB Findings
Packet Pg. 51
Page 4 of 5
4
1
8
1
designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:
An internal sense of order is created by the central driveway, which provides access for cars, as well as bikes and
pedestrians. The perimeter includes exterior doors facing the side property lines. For privacy, these ground level
doors will be screened from the parking lot by a wooden fence. The three story form is appropriate in mass, scale,
and character to the neighborhood, including Encina Ave. and the Town and Country Shopping Center. It enhances
living conditions by providing housing units for families that are within walking distance of the shopping center,
schools, and CalTrain.
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate
construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and
enhance the surrounding area.
The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:
The project incorporates a variety of materials, including sandy/tan brick veneer, cement, and fiber cement panel,
gray fiber cement panel, dark metal accents and roof, and landscape elements. These materials are utilized on all
four sides of the building, with the brick veneer providing a base to the upper floors. The proposed materials are
compatible with the neighborhood.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing
for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and
utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
The project is consistent with Finding #4 because:
The design includes a single entrance (with separate gates) for cars, pedestrians, and bikes. It has limited open
space, primarily in the central driveway and balconies facing the driveway. The units share a refuse room that is
only accessible by exiting the main gates to a door on the outside of the building.
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is
appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant
plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:
The project provides landscaped area in the front and within the central courtyard. All existing trees are proposed
to be removed, with seven replacement trees planted on site. Although further landscaping may be preferred, the
proposed landscaping will provide a suitable residential appearance.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy
efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:
Item 3
Attachment B: Draft PC
and ARB Findings
Packet Pg. 52
Page 5 of 5
4
1
8
1
In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen
Mandatory + Tier 2.
Item 3
Attachment B: Draft PC
and ARB Findings
Packet Pg. 53
ATTACHMENT C
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
70 Encina, 24PLN-00095
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT)
Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards
Regulation Required CC
Residential Standards Existing Proposed PHZ
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth No Requirement
100.0 feet x 121.19
feet
12,119 sf
100.0 feet x 121.19
feet
12,119 sf
Minimum Front Yard 0 feet N/A 0 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet N/A 0 feet 3 inches
Interior Side Yards No Requirement N/A Varies, 0 feet 7 inches
– 5 feet
Max. Site Coverage 6,059 sf
50%N/A 7,108 sf
58.64%
Min. Landscape/Open Space 3,630 sf
30%
0%, no ground-level
landscaping or
qualifying open space
Min. Useable Open Space 150 sf per unit
1500 sf total N/A
Unit terraces vary 79
sf – 155 sf
952 sf total
Max. Building Height 50 feet N/A 37 feet 3 inches
Residential Density No Requirement N/A 10 units
28 du/acre
Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1.25
15,150 sf N/A
22,355 sf
1.84:1
100% residential
Daylight Plane None N/A N/A
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
for Office*
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking No parking required
per AB 2097
Approximately 36
uncovered spaces
16 spaces
Bicycle Parking 1 LT space per unit None 1 LT space in each unit
garage
Item 3
Attachment C: CC Zoning
Comparison Table
Packet Pg. 54
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 55
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 56
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 57
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 58
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 59
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 60
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 61
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 62
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 63
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 64
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 65
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 66
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 67
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 68
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 69
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 70
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 71
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 72
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 73
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 74
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 75
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 76
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 77
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 78
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 79
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 80
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 81
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 82
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 83
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 84
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 85
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 86
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 87
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 88
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 89
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 90
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 91
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 92
Item 3
Attachment D: Public
Comments
Packet Pg. 93
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 94
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 95
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 96
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 97
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 98
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 99
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 100
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 101
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 102
Item 3
Attachment E: 11-7-24
Published Staff Report
Packet Pg. 103
If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at
650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to
Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via
the following online resources.
Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “70 Encina” and click the address link
3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important
information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-
Planning/Projects/70-Encina-Ave
Item 3
Attachment F: Project
Plans
Packet Pg. 104
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: February 6, 2025
Report #: 2501-4060
TITLE
Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Minutes of December 19, 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. 105
Page 1 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: December 19, 2024
Council Chamber & Zoom
8:00 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on December 5, 2024 in Council
Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m.
Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board
member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch
Absent: None.
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
City Official Reports
1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items
Steven Switzer, Historic Planner/ARB Liaison, provided a slide presentation discussing upcoming
meetings and recently submitted items and a 2024/2025 meeting schedule.
Study Session
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)
Jean Eisberg provided a slide presentation about the El Camino Real Focus Area talking about the
meeting purpose, background of the focus area and housing element program 3.4E, criteria for
geographic expansion, a map of tier breakdown, building heights, revisions to development standards,
existing daylight plane and height transition standard, existing front stepback standard, modified
standards for the expanded area, PTC feedback from December 17 study session and questions for ARB.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 106
Page 2 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
PUBLIC COMMENT
Steve Levy, favored listening to the feedback from Ms. Eisberg and staff with regard to the setback and
step back. He was happy with the geographic expansion and stated he would not go more strict than the
existing focus areas, development standards, 85 feet, 4.0 FAR. He was interested in knowing the names
of the developers other than the two Builder’s Remedy proposals that expressed interest. He hoped the
Board would remember to make sure that the standards bring forth feasible projects.
Ted O’Hanlon, development consultant working with Oxford Capital on the Creekside project, discussed
how the daylight plane and height restrictions would limit more housing. He suggested a daylight plane
type of model to ensure that massing and building heights would be set back from the R1 appropriately.
He felt the staff report was a good direction to go in.
Michael Quinn, read a letter with Palo Alto Ford’s thoughts on the expansion. The letter asked the Board
to consider a 35 foot transitional height for a distance of 50 feet from low density residential uses. They
supported lessening the height step back requirements and the parking mandates.
Questions were asked about the gray areas on the map of geographical locations and clarification about
the tier designations.
Ms. Eisberg replied in this case the gray areas depicted either recently redeveloped sites, sites with
parks on them or sites they did not expect to redevelop in the near or medium term. She added that the
analysis was a site analysis and was not intended to stipulate zone districts so other sites may become
part of this that were not expected to be redeveloped.
Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, clarified that some of the sites in the gray area were not included in
the expanded area to avoid confusion about sites being redeveloped. She remarked the information
presented was to convey those that have the highest potential for redevelopment. The focus area could
be connected areas or be focused on those that have the highest likelihood of redevelopment.
Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the status of what is called out as original El Camino Real focus
area and the possibility of including those properties.
Ms. Eisberg explained the hatched area was already included in the focus area and discussions. Staff
engaged in discussions with that property owner when the focus area was originally approved.
Chair Rosenberg remarked they were looking to add to the existing focus area and start with tier one
and then possibility tier two. The question was if there was anything from tier three or four that should
be added in because it would all end up under one zoning set of rules. She asked if making adjustments
to the El Camino Real focus area would affect those properties as well as the new ones they were
looking to lump in.
Assistant Director Armer added part of the question was whether certain areas should have different
regulations based on proximity to R1 or distance from transit. Depending on location, there could be
different regulations applied. She stated they would be looking for direction on which areas were
recommended to be added.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 107
Page 3 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Vice Chair Chen queried what the current height standard was for the housing element sites and if they
could request for a building height waiver if they were developed as housing.
Ms. Eisberg replied many sites were zoned CN in which commercial and residential sites had different
height limits. Sites zoned in CS had one height limit regardless of use. Those sites could apply under
State Density Bonus law and request waivers from that height limit. That would also apply on sections of
El Camino and projects could also utilize that program to get specific changes to development standards.
Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if there had been an effort to determine the distance from any
one of the sites and the actual housing developments adjacent to those areas.
Ms. Eisberg answered a lot of the objective standards drive the design typologies on El Camino. Ground
floor residential is not permitted within the first X feet of a development and garage access, where
available, needs to be from the side street or the rear if it is a corner lot.
Assistant Director Armer added the map conveyed through the yellowish color which sites were in the
low density, R1 zone and gave a sense of the proximity of the use category. Doing a site by site inventory
of who had a garage immediately adjacent to the commercial property was more detail than they were
able to do. That would be looked at when the development came forward.
Boardmember Baltay asked what determined the delineation between tier two and tier three on the
eastern and western sides of El Camino.
Ms. Eisberg replied they were looking to see if there was a relationship to the proximity to transit in the
San Antonio station area and with the commercial development in Mountain View along San Antonio.
There were a number of housing opportunity sites closest to the border and some larger sites not
identified as housing element opportunity sites. There were some hotels in that area. Redevelopment
was a possibility. The way the parcels were drawn on the map signified condominiums. No
condominiums were included in the condominiums in tiers three, two or one because they did not see
those redeveloping.
Boardmember Baltay questioned why the housing development in progress to the left of the eastern
side of El Camino at the southern border of the City was a tier three area. He was looking for an overall
vision of what they think this should be developed as.
Ms. Eisberg explained tier three sites abut an R1 zoning district and were too small so they would not
anticipate the ability to use an 85 foot height limit to provide 20 percent onsite affordability. She agreed
to look into the specific site in question about how it ended up in tier three.
Chair Rosenberg wanted to know what the existing El Camino Real focus area zoning classification was.
Ms. Eisberg replied there were all different zones that apply to that area, PC zone, CS, RP, RM20 and CS.
She explained how the focus area modified the base criteria.
Boardmember Baltay remarked that in his experience watching developments come forth, very small
lots are limiting. He suggested setting a minimum lot size and recommending allowing the standards of
4.0 FAR and 85-foot height.
Boardmember Adcock added it would be simpler if zoning changed to all of the mentioned requirements
if housing was being pursued.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 108
Page 4 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Boardmember Hirsch thought they should find some regularity on the street.
Boardmember Baltay commented that going south on El Camino from College Avenue all the way down
to the vicinity of Matadero and should be one zone and be allowed to go to 85 feet in height. He advised
looking for a consistent pattern of development.
Chair Rosenberg opined the inconsistent zoning was problematic and once the area was part of the
focus area they should be allowed to do A or B or a combination. She had some hesitation that making
the buildings conducive to the size of the lot would encourage only people that have funds to build
something that big to get into the development game.
Boardmember Baltay was comfortable saying anything south of College Avenue along El Camino could
be developed to the new standards with one standard being a minimum lot width.
Boardmember Adcock agreed the projects that are wider had more flexibility and better for the safety of
the public on the street.
Vice Chair Chen concurred larger sites had more potential and solved problems with transportation,
onsite amenities and trash collection. She thought there may be some sites that could be consolidated
in the other direction.
Boardmember Baltay agreed it could be lot area and not frontage. He did not think the members of
Council and Planning Commission understood that the size and width of the lot had such a big bearing
on how well it could be developed. He supported saying the entire southern stretch of El Camino from
College south would be allowed to develop under these standards adding some parameters about the
lot size.
Chair Rosenberg highlighted on the map what she thought should be included in the focus area and
what should not.
Boardmember Adcock suggested simplifying it to a one-mile radius from Caltrain. She thought they
could recommend the lot size would be all the same and the proximity to R1 would influence the height.
Chair Rosenberg had concern with encouraging the growth of islands.
Boardmember Baltay stated he preferred putting additional layers of protection for the existing R1
facilities and say that the whole thing will be developed this way one day. He would support any
consistent standard.
Mr. Switzer related that differing views were welcomed.
Assistant Director Armer indicated they would be working to integrate the Board’s recommendations
and discussion along with Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations.
Chair Rosenberg summarized that for question number one, four of the Board members would like to
include all areas but described on the map the areas she would like to have included. Regarding
question two, she gathered that the Board members preferred having an overarching focus area with a
set of standards based on some sort of minimum. She invited discussion for question number three.
Boardmember Adcock used the diagram to outline her thoughts on the daylight plane asking if there
was minimum depth of the site to allow an 85 feet height.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 109
Page 5 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Boardmember Baltay agreed that should be studied. He supported keeping it a simple daylight plane. He
was comfortable with sticking to the standards currently in place and over time evolving the current
standards regarding allowed projections. He opined the fundamental idea ought to be a standard of a
daylight plane at a certain height and angle at the backside of all the lots that ought to be triggered on
adjacency to residential use. The question was if it was just R1 or any use that was actually residential.
Chair Rosenberg thought the definition was the R1 zone and their point was to protect the single family
homes from having an 80-foot behemoth in their backyard.
Boardmember Baltay recalled setting a minimum height of the building next to it when doing objective
standards on the daylight plane.
Chair Rosenberg provided that ADUs were all capped at 16 feet so the 16-foot height limit would make
sense. She was inclined to say a slightly more restrictive daylight plane, but let them build to it.
Boardmember Baltay suggested landing the daylight plane at 16 foot, 45 degrees when adjacent to
residential low density or R1.
Chair Rosenberg was in favor of changing the daylight plane to 45 degrees at 16 feet but not having the
height transitions.
Ms. Eisberg clarified the focus area was an alternative to state density bonus law and an encouragement
to not use the Builder's Remedy. Until January 1st, when the rules changed, applicants could submit
without complying to the zoning as long as they met the 20 percent threshold for below market rate.
The focus area says you can take the focus area standards but cannot use state density bonus law. That
would be a way for the City to maintain the objective design standards and all the City's zoning
requirements. When using the focus area standards, the specified daylight plane has to be met.
Boardmember Adcock asked if that would lead them to think 60 degrees would give a better chance of
using focus area requirements versus density bonus.
Boardmember Baltay replied that was a calculation of what would balance the City's desire to protect
low density housing more versus keep developers within this program rather than something more
aggressive. He preferred the shallower daylight plan with additional encroachment allowances. He
thought their advice should be the daylight plane would be the regulating mechanism. It would be up to
the Council to decide whether it be 45 or 60.
Chair Rosenberg clarified that the goal of the state density bonus was to incentivize the focus area
people to choose to develop to Palo Alto's preferred standards rather than the state density bonus
standards. She preferred being a little harsher in the residential side and doing more to protect single
family homes and allowing a little bit more leniency on the front side.
Boardmember Baltay supported a 10-foot setback no the backside and asked if that was the staff
recommendation and confirmed that was including those adjacent to low-density residential.
Chair Rosenberg summarized that everyone was okay with suggesting a 10-foot setback as long as there
was a 45-degree daylight plane starting at 16 feet. She invited discussion on the front setbacks.
Boardmember Baltay thought they all agreed that the setback of the building above a certain height was
desirable and felt their objective standards were pushing for that kind of thing. He opined having a 20-
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 110
Page 6 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
foot setback above 55 feet would conflict with the objective standards. He questioned what the
objective standards applied to. He asked if the objective standards required some sort of step back
above a certain height or just assumed a building was never above 50 feet.
Ms. Eisberg explained the objective standards applied in the focus area because other requirements
could not be waived out. There were a couple of objective standards with footnotes in the code saying
there were exceptions because the objective standards otherwise conflicted.
Boardmember Hirsch did not think it specified the height but never showed a diagram other than the
lower density.
Boardmember Baltay wanted to see this made part of the objective standards. He thought 20 feet as a
blanket requirement would be limiting and it should be more like 5 or 10 feet to achieve their design
objective. He talked about how corner elements would be treated.
Boardmember Adcock described why she supported keeping it at 55 or a little bit higher.
Chair Rosenberg suggested it might be as simple as saying 50 percent of the building facade needs to
have X-foot setback.
Boardmember Baltay agreed but thought it should be 80 percent and the objective standards was a
better place to put that kind of regulation.
Chair Rosenberg summarized the Board was in agreement with a minimum of 10-foot setback and asked
if there was a percentage of the façade they would like to apply it to.
Boardmember Baltay agreed a nominal percentage to allow for towers and corners in order of no more
than 20 to 30 feet. He added that was dependent on the width of the property.
Mr. Switzer interjected for context for the facade design on the objective standards, there would be an
upper floor step back of five feet for a minimum of 80 percent of the length of the façade for structures
three stories or higher.
Ms. Eisberg added the current standard for the focus area was an average step back of 20 feet.
Chair Rosenberg summarized that the Board members agreed on recommending 10-foot setbacks at the
fronts above 55 feet for 75 percent of the façade. She asked how everyone felt with 85 feet overall
height.
Boardmember Baltay wondered why the did not include elevated mechanical screens as part of the
height of a building.
Boardmember Adcock opined a part of it was how far the setback was and if it was up to the street or
within a certain distance from the setback, it should count toward the 85. Using the same daylight plane
idea from the 85 feet, it would be 45 degrees back.
Boardmember Baltay recalled stairs and elevator towers were allowed to project above the height limit
to provide rooftop access.
Mr. Switzer explained going off the definition for the purpose of height, the majority of the sites
identified, excluding the low density and residential, it would be the highest point of the flat roof or the
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 111
Page 7 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
deck line of a mansard roof. It would be the highest point of any of the wall parapets or roof structure of
a single family residence. Those items would not be included per the definition of height.
Boardmember Baltay suggested providing feedback that to go taller be careful of what projections were
allowed.
Vice Chair Chen asked if they wanted a roof daylight plane applied to roof gardens.
Boardmember Baltay thought it would be a good study to ask if the established daylight plane would
regulate this or if they should establish a roof daylight plane starting at the edge of the parapet of the
roof, another 45 degree plane, regulating secondary uses.
Ms. Eisberg added in this focus area, there was an exemption for railings and parapets that were there
for health and safety standards.
Chair Rosenberg remarked a solid parapet wall in alignment with the building and it looked like part of
the building followed 85 feet and if there was a setback railing 20 feet back would be a different
exception. She liked the idea of the additional 45-degree daylight plane for anything mechanically
installed on the roof.
Boardmember Baltay commented the code ought to have a basic allowance of what is allowed to
project beyond the height limit and how that would be limited. He liked the idea of a daylight plane
from the roof and it made sense to allow things such as elevator towers, stair towers, trellises and
railings to go above it. He advised Council, staff and PTC should be made aware that some of these
exceptions could be manipulated to get greater height.
Chair Rosenberg referenced the setback diagram on page 84 asking what the setback was based on.
Boardmember Baltay recalled the current code said the building setback would be 12 feet from the face
of the curb and would not allow this projection above a certain height into that distance. He was
comfortable with saying it would be 12 feet.
Chair Rosenberg remarked if the property line went out to 10 feet it would impose on the property line.
Boardmember Baltay related they would call it a setback.
Ms. Eisberg revealed there was an existing sidewalk width requirement of 12 feet and not necessarily a
setback. The setbacks up and down El Camino depend on the zoning district. Many do not have a front
setback requirement but still have a minimum sidewalk width requirement. If that required some kind of
easement at the ground level to create a sidewalk, that would need to happen.
Boardmember Baltay inquired what the minimum height was at a sidewalk and if there was a standard
for that. He assumed 10 to 12 feet. It was his thinking that it was important to preserve the 12-foot
sidewalks.
Ms. Eisberg remarked the housing element sites, under state law, were allowed to build out as 100
percent residential, regardless of what an underlying zone might say or regardless of the retail
preservation ordinance. That was going through as part of the housing element implementation. Other
standards on El Camino did not allow residential along the frontage at the ground level. Residential units
could be in the rear but there would likely be something else in the front.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 112
Page 8 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Chair Rosenberg clarified that the Board agreed with the 12-foot minimum sidewalk width for the first
floor.
Boardmember Adcock asked about street trees or planting.
Chair Rosenberg explained for a sidewalk of 12 feet there would be a 4-foot pocket for trees.
Boardmember Baltay pointed out if the building comes into it up above, it's not for the tree anymore.
He suggested to staff changing the diagram an, showing the building as a straight line and saying the
regulation is minimum sidewalk width.
Chair Rosenberg mentioned the possibility of a condition where it was less than 12 feet from edge of
curb to the property line.
Boardmember Baltay did not think it was good for buildings to project over the sidewalk and they
should encourage it even if the code did not explicitly require it.
Boardmember Adcock agreed and did not think they should infringe on the growth area of street trees.
Chair Rosenberg asked what would stop a developer from making it one big extensive thing. If the area
was completely covered on three sides but recessed in did not count as floor area they would be more
incentivized to recess some of the entrance areas to provide planting, benches and things to create
moments of relief along a street side facade. She would not want 100 feet of just glass the whole way
down.
Boardmember Hirsch pointed out objective standards had some discussion about insets and whatnot
required.
Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification whether the intent was for the two setbacks to be layered.
Assistant Director Armer stated they would look into that.
Boardmember Baltay advised staff should read through all the standards and ensure some of the
numbers were not contradictory to what they were trying to do.
Mr. Switzer clarified the objective standards provided a menu for some of the variations.
Vice Chair Chen questioned if they should consider higher heights than 55. She stated starting with 65
would allow them to have one more story higher.
Boardmember Baltay recalled the current height limit in Palo Alto was 50 feet and was decided on a long
time ago when there was not such a tall retail environment and not as many expectations on residential.
He felt 55 made sense in the expectation of fitting a five story building, which was their design intent.
Vice Chair Chen countered four stories above one level of retail was not enough and eliminated the
possibility to have two-story retail down below.
Boardmember Baltay stated a one-story retail, four-story residential was the idea.
Chair Rosenberg added there would be three more stories above this for residential. She thought going
up to 65 would be imposing and 55 feet was appropriate and fair. She wanted to make a note with staff
that four out of five were comfortable with 55 feet and Vice Chair Chen preferred a 65-foot limit.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 113
Page 9 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Boardmember Baltay discussed open space and that private open space consistently came up where
developers felt it was too restrictive. He thought the issue needed to be addressed in the planning
process whether the private open space was required or required to be met in the form of balconies
rather than outdoor spaces that might meet the requirement elsewhere in the project.
Ms. Eisberg explained the current focus area standard was 100 square feet and could be any
combination of common or private open space, different than the typical base district standard.
Balconies are not required.
Boardmember Baltay had a problem with not requiring balconies.
Chair Rosenberg pointed out how balconies were sporadic and requiring one for every single unit was
asking a lot and suggested maybe a percentage of units having one.
Mr. Switzer remarked the objective design standard was based on district. RM20 and RM30 districts
minimum had a minimum of 100 square feet of area. There were dimension requirements of eight feet
in width. The must accommodate 75 percent of the area. For RM40, a minimum of 80 square feet and at
least 6-foot width for 75 percent of that area. For common open space, a minimum of 200 square feet
and it should accommodate a dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter in the middle of that. There
is a diagram in the code that identifies floors above the ground floor.
Boardmember Baltay thought whether to regulate balconies was an important decision.
Mr. Switzer agreed to write it down and consider it.
Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand the current rules.
Ms. Eisberg explained the CN-CS-CC district would allow for any combination of private or common open
space but would require 150 square feet per unit. Residential uses within commercial districts were not
required to put in private open space for residential but they can choose to do so.
Chair Rosenberg summarized that the Board felt the outdoor open space was important and strongly
preferred private balconies for a certain number of units and having common outdoor area and 100
square feet per unit might be an acceptable incentive. She remarked it needed discussion and
thoughtfulness. She invited discussion about parking.
Boardmember Hirsch wanted to push for a recommendation to accept the state’s parking description.
Boardmember Adcock asked if they were requiring buildings in the half mile radius to provide one car
per unit.
Chair Rosenberg thought the state exempted them and Ms. Eisberg confirmed that.
Vice Chair Chen questioned if there were any current regulations for the loading zone, ride share or
delivery.
Assistant Director Armer explained there were ongoing discussions with Council about what
requirements there might be for accessible or electric charging parking spaces and whether those could
be required even when other parking was not being provided. She did not think the loading spaces
would be required. If no parking was required would override all categories except for the ongoing
discussion with Council.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 114
Page 10 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Ms. Eisberg added the focus area did include a series of TDM measures if parking was reduced by more
than half of what is typically allowed by the code. That triggers bike parking requirements for electric
and cargo bikes. For the housing incentive program, there was discussion about including a drop off
zone, loading zone, or TNC and they could look at that for the focus area also.
Vice Chair Chen felt that was important along El Camino for traffic flow.
Chair Rosenberg wanted to encourage the other boards to strongly incentivize and understand the
impact a wider site would have on the overall flow of traffic on El Camino.
Boardmember Hirsch recalled a bike plan was being drawn up for El Camino so both sides of the street
would likely have bike zones which would restrict where loading zones would be so off-street loading
ought to be a requirement.
Boardmember Adcock queried what the process would be if other adjacent properties wanted to be
part of the focus area.
Assistant Director Armer replied it would be a request for modification to the focus area since it was
that would be adopted by Council.
Mr. Switzer added it would be prudent to speak up sooner rather than later.
3. Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects
(2020-2024)
Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation about the ARB Design Awards including a recommendation,
Comprehensive Plan Program L6.1.1, ARB bylaws and evaluation criteria and process.
Chair Rosenberg thought five was the appropriate number of awards, one project per year. She thought
it was appropriate to have honorable mention if there was a need and that a single family home would
be appropriate for that as the ARB did not review them.
Boardmember Baltay advised being more flexible. He brought up establishing categories. He recalled in
the past it was a compromise negotiation where they agreed on projects then figured out which
category they went into.
Boardmember Adcock queried if the descriptions were more of like what the projects were or were the
actual categories.
Chair Rosenberg explained there were not a tremendous amount of religious assemblies being built but
a tremendous amount of office buildings. So one of 5 of the religious assemblies being built in the past
five years versus one of 50 of the office buildings would be a very different sort of set of standards being
compared. She suggested once they each get their 16, they evaluate them for a theme. She thought the
goal was making sure there was some variety in who won awards. She wanted to task the Board
members with dividing up the categories after they got their 16 projects and narrowing them down.
Vice Chair Chen thought the list would be shorter as the award was only for those that were completed.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 115
Page 11 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Mr. Switzer clarified the list of 79 projects was projects that had gone before the board and she was
correct that the list would probably be significantly reduced. Whatever that number turned out to be,
the qualifier in the bylaws was that the awards should go to a built or constructed project. Staff could
help with each individual board member of those 16 or so projects divvied up and determine of those
numbers which projects had been built and further evaluation process could continue as what the board
has discussed for establishing categories or which projects may be of merit and worth awarding. He
pulled up a list of the projects and they were divided up.
Boardmember Baltay was in favor of Chair Rosenberg or staff arbitrarily creating a list of 16 for each
Board member broken by geographic area, publish that list and send it to them.
Chair Rosenberg agreed to do that.
Boardmember Adcock recommended dividing it to focus on categories rather than geographically.
Boardmember Baltay preferred doing it geographically. He suggested being more flexible in the quantity
of them and pick an even number of projects that had to be visited and thought about.
Chair Rosenberg stated she and Mr. Switzer would get a list to the Board members out in the next few
days to be looking around at the projects and narrow it down for the January 16 hearing.
Boardmember Adcock inquired about the longer term goal of the actual board meetings. She wanted to
know if there was any public engagement planned.
Chair Rosenberg answered at the pre-hearing they discussed potential for summertime award
ceremony.
Mr. Switzer thought they could consider getting the public involved. He thought figuring out a solid list
was the first step and then how the public could be involved. He thought January 16 was a great time to
review the list. He asked them to keep in mind that the Board would have a retreat in the new year to
allow for a more engaged conversation. There was potential have different hearings.
Boardmember Hirsch thought involving the public would drag the process out. He asked how they would
present their picks.
Chair Rosenberg answered they could take photos of their short list, go online and get Google images or
go back to the planning packets from the projects.
Mr. Switzer added every planning entitlement had a webpage with the City so there would be a
rendering of the projects. He advised sending him their visual representations of the projects before the
next discussion.
Boardmember Baltay suggested they establish the date they would have the ceremony at the latest
January 16 and work backward from that. He wanted to see the Board be consistent when award
ceremonies were issued. He thought spring was the logical time for the ceremony.
Mr. Switzer remarked March 31 was the typical term of the ARB Board members. There were some
targeted in 2025 for re-election or term limit. Having the awards centered around what other
jurisdictions or affiliations across the state and having planning and working back from a date would be
worthwhile. He suggested reserving that decision for the January 16 meeting.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 116
Page 12 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Chair Rosenberg asked Mr. Switzer if he could prepare a timeline of working backward for when they
issue the award and for preparations.
Mr. Switzer answered the staff report could detail the feasibility of what it would take to accomplish all
the items and inform choosing a date.
Boardmember Baltay asked Chair Rosenberg to set the date, what would be involved and where it
would be displayed.
Chair Rosenberg wanted to account for the concept that they would be winning an award and there
would be work that had to be done. She recalled that in the past it took several weeks for the visual
displays to be put together and printed and she wanted to be respectful of the people that they were
not throwing a crunch time on them.
Boardmember Baltay disagreed with the qualifier that the project had to have been reviewed by the
ARB. He suggested enlarging the program to include a category of the best single-family residences.
Chair Rosenberg questioned if they had a list of those projects.
Mr. Switzer stated they could compile such a list. The Comprehensive Plan Policy was vague. The article
in the bylaws was where that qualifier came in. They could investigate if changing that would be an
amendment to the bylaws.
Boardmember Hirsch thought it added a lot of work to what they already had to do and would extend
the period of review time.
Vice Chair Chen agreed they should recognize the work of residential architects but did not think it was
necessary to include a residential award into the ARB and suggested separating it and considering a
single-family residence award yearly.
Chair Rosenberg pointed out the large number that would be.
Mr. Switzer agreed that sifting through that amount of building permits would be a large ask of staff.
Chair Rosenberg agreed that residential should be included but the question was how. She suggested
self-promotion.
Boardmember Adcock mentioned the variety of awards the architects could submit to and did not feel
like they needed to take on that additional layer.
Boardmember Hirsch seconded Boardmember Adcock’s feelings.
Boardmember Baltay suggested putting a flyer out at City Hall that all architects are welcome to submit
projects completed over a certain time period in certain categories.
Mr. Switzer remarked one of the recommendations for this discussion was about how the public could
participate in this process. He thought opening it up for a potential award category could be
accommodated. It would require some additional work but if that was the desire of the board it could be
further investigated.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 117
Page 13 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Boardmember Baltay opined they would be inundated with applications from architects willing to put
together the presentation as long as they did not charge a fee.
Boardmember Hirsch thought it should be one architect be premiered by this.
Chair Rosenberg agreed one award for single-family homes.
Boardmember Adcock advised the list of requirements must include floor plans, elevations, renders and
description.
Mr. Switzer added that if this was something the Board wanted to consider for the January 16 meeting,
having a succinct list of qualifiers for eligibility would be necessary.
Chair Rosenberg was inclined to give the task of compiling the list to either Boardmember Hirch or
Adcock as they did not do residential work.
Boardmembers Baltay and Adcock suggested AIA awards requirements.
Vice Chair Chen wondered if they should require it be owner occupied.
Chair Rosenberg was of the opinion that if someone thought their project was good enough they could
submit it for review.
Boardmember Adcock added she did not think it was a given that they would give the award as they did
not know how many submissions they would receive. She offered to volunteer to compile the list for
requirements and have it ready by January 16.
Boardmember Baltay added a flyer was needed to be publicized.
Mr. Switzer noted that any advertisement sent out through the City would need to go through the
communications team to be reviewed.
Vice Chair Chen again suggested having it every year instead of every five years.
Boardmember Baltay agreed with Vice Chair Chen but added that would require Council approval to
expand the scope.
Boardmember Adcock added doing it every year would be a huge ask.
Mr. Switzer pointed out the bylaws were specific pointed toward what the awards would be reviewing.
If they wanted to consider something beyond that scope, it would likely require a revision to the bylaws
which could be done.
Chair Rosenberg thought it was appropriate to have one award every five years and having it every year
would dilute it.
Boardmember Hirsch felt their mandate was to review certain projects presented to them. He felt
adding this to the category was inappropriate because it did not involve their committee.
Boardmember Adcock agreed with Boardmember Hirsch’s comments. There were other avenues to be
awarded on residential projects.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 118
Page 14 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Chair Rosenberg agreed the focus should be maintained on ARB projects. She did not oppose including
residential but did not want it to turn into the residential design awards. She thought the Board needed
to maintain focus on the projects under their purview. She was still open to the idea of allowing
submissions for single-family homes. She thought having honorable mention for single-family homes
was appropriate.
Boardmember Baltay corrected her saying it was a multi-family project.
Chair Rosenberg summarized that they would skip residential. They would get a list together by the end
of the day so everyone would have their assignments for January 16.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2024
Boardmember Adcock requested a correction on page 48, paragraph 2 which stated, “She noted that all
Board members knew Boardmember Adcock who worked at the staff office.” She wanted “worked at
the staff office” corrected to “worked on the project”.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas
Chair Rosenberg announced there was a PTC meeting on December 11 covering 4075 El Camino
regarding parking. The final decision of the PTC was to move forward but reduce the number of units.
There was a lot of conversation about the legality, setbacks and daylight plane. It is in the hands of City
Council.
Boardmember Baltay asked if PTC got Chair Rosenberg’s input on those matters.
Chair Rosenberg replied they did not. A lot of it had to do with the legality of the way the code was
written when the zoning was formed at the time and what they were complying with now. The city
attorney was there and answered the legality of those questions.
Boardmember Baltay asked if the recommendation to reduce the number of units was relative to the
legality of the zoning criteria.
Chair Rosenberg answered the legality was they were allowed to build what they had. PTC
recommended reducing the number of units anyway even though city attorney seemed to be advising
that they were allowed to build what has been proposed.
Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know the additional criteria for disallowing the number of units they
approved. He thought they should come out strongly and say they had examined all the aspects of
closeness, daylight plane and privacy. He suggested writing a letter in support of the project going ahead
as presented.
Chair Rosenberg agreed they should reiterate that the ARB stands firm in its previous decision to allow
the project to move forward as designed and they disagree with PTC on that front. She would be be
sitting on that City Council hearing and would be able to provide the Boards’ view on that.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 119
Page 15 of 15
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24
Boardmember Baltay echoed Boardmember Hirsch’s comments and strongly requested that staff make
sure their input was formally requested by Council as the matter is considered.
Adjournment
Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes
December 19, 2024
Packet Pg. 120