HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 20, 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.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Review Ad Hoc committee Report on Objective Standards for
Townhomes and Provide Direction to Staff
3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built
Projects (2020‐2024)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2025
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 20, 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.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Review Ad Hoc committee Report on Objective Standards for
Townhomes and Provide Direction to Staff
3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built
Projects (2020‐2024)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2025
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 20, 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.Ad Hoc Committee Report: Review Ad Hoc committee Report on Objective Standards forTownhomes and Provide Direction to Staff3.Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing BuiltProjects (2020‐2024)APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2025BOARD 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 20, 2025
Report #: 2502-4127
TITLE
Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
This document includes the following items:
• ARB meeting schedule
• Upcoming ARB agenda items
• Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review
Board members are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@CityofPaloAlto.org) to
notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the
availability of an ARB quorum.
Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a
hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal
period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for
requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals.
Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing
communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or
Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant.
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 4
Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2
UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS
The following items are tentative and subject to change:
MEETING DATE TOPICS
March 6, 2025 •180 El Camino: Delarosa
•Townhomes Objective Standards
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 can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 1
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 5
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 Rosenberg
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. 6
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Pending ARB Projects
The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye
at bit.ly/PABuildingEye.
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review
9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250
Hamilton
Ave
Bridge Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge
over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not
obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also
include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The
SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on 9/26/19.
Zoning District: PF.
On-hold for redesign
Major
Architectural
Review
Zone Change
12/21/21 21PLN-00341
24PLN-00239
660
University
680
University
Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660
University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish
Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story
Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-
Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade
Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential
(42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-
Bedroom).
NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow
SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story
mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non-
residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF),
multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade
parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20%
on-site BMR.
ARB 1st formal
12/1/22, ARB
recommended
approval 4/22;
Applicant is revising
project plans
Item 1
Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 7
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review
6/8/23 23PLN-00136
23PLN-00277
(Map)
23PLN-00003
and -00195 –
(SB 330)
24PLN-00230
(Code
compliant
version)
24PLN-00231
(Map)
3150 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
380 units
Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of a 380-
unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below
Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot
apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that
extends to 84 feet in height. Staff is reviewing the project to
ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance
with the State Density Bonus laws.
Focus Area
Compliant
Application Filed
8/7/24; NOI Sent
9/7/24. Pending
Resubmittal.
Tentative ARB
11/7/2024.
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch) Reported out
5/4 on SB 330
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch) Reported out
on 8/17
ARB 11/7 Rec.
approval
Major
Architectural
Review
7/19/23 23PLN-00181 824 San
Antonio
Road
Housing –
16 senior
units, 12
convalescent
units
Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of
an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4-
Story private residential senior living facility, including 15
independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1
owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors,
underground parking, and ground floor commercial space. Zoning
District: CS (Commercial Services).
12/21/23 ARB
hearing; Revised
Plans resubmitted
9/25/24;
ARB 11/21 Rec.
approval
PC
Amendment
8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El
Camino
Way
Commercial
16
convalescent
units
Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New
Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility
consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional
Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms.
Zoning District: PC-5116
Community Meeting
in October. 2/28/24
and 6/12/24 PTC
hearing, 7/18/24 ARB
hearing, ARB
10/17/24, PTC &
Council hearings
TBD.
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Chen) reported out
6/1
Item 1
Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 8
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review
1/10/24 24PLN-00012 3265 El
Camino
Real
Housing Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home
Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable
multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and
ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS.
NOI Sent 1/10/24.
PTC 4/10/24; ARB
4/22/24; Applicant
submitted revised
project 9/13/24 with
55 Units; Tentative
ARB 11/21/24.
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Thompson) reported
out 8/17 on
prescreening
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch)
ARB 11/21 Rec.
approval
PTC 1/15 Rec.
approval 3-2 with
two additional
conditions.
CC tentatively 2/10.
Major
Architectural
Review
3/6/24 24PLN-00064 640
Waverley
Mixed-Use Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to
allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial
and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a
preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment:
Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P).
NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB
6/6/24. Pending
Resubmittal;
Preparing 15183
Exemption. Tentative
ARB January 2025.
Ad Hoc (Rosenberg,
Hirsch)
ARB 1/16 Rec.
approval
Minor
Architectural
Review
3/7/24 24PLN-00066 180 El
Camino
Real
Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades
for a restaurant tenant (Delarosa); to include new exterior pergola
over seating and planters in existing location. New metal awnings
over main entrance to replace existing acrylic and new metal
awning at rear to replace existing fabric awning. New signage and
NOI Sent 4/10.
Pending Resubmittal.
Item 1
Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 9
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
replace existing light fixtures. Environmental Assessment:
Pending. Zoning District: (CC)
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/02/24 24PLN-00100
24PLN-00223
(Map)
156
California
Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with
California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy"
which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California
Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is
situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29
ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the
reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing
parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use
Multi Family Development. This project consists of three
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 Rec.
approval
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San
Antonio
Housing –
198 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE
65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition
of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-
story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental
NOI Sent 5/23/2024.
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Chen)
Item 1
Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 10
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental:
Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD.
Streamlined
Housing
Development
Review
5/28/24 24PLN-00152
24PLN-00023
(Prelim)
4335-
4345 El
Camino
Housing –
29 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing
development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El
Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial
building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building
(4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached
residential townhome-style condominiums with associated
utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service
Commercial).
NOI Sent 6/27/2024.
ARB 9/19/24.
Pending Resubmittal
of Plans.
Ad Hoc (Hirsch,
Baltay) reviewed
prelim
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/24 24PLN-00161
24PLN-00048
(SB 330)
3781 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
177 units
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple
existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737
& 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388
Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family
residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of
above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are
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
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/24 24PLN-00162
24PLN-00047
(SB 330)
3606 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
335 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple
existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at
3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall
Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential
housing development project with 335 units. The new residential
building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground
floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real
and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending.
Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40
NOI Sent 8/1/2024.
Resubmittal on
11/22/24
Deemed Complete
12/25/24
Supplementary info
req.
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
7/17/24 24PLN-00184
24PLN-00232
(Map)
3400 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
231 units
&
Hotel –
92 rooms
Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to
demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at
3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and
replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential
towers, one new seven-story hotel, one new three story
townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three
existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to
residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various
(SB330)
NOI Sent 8/16/2024
and 9/12/2024;
Pending Resubmittal.
Item 1
Attachment B-Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 11
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Minor
Architectural
Review &
Conditional
Use Permit
9/24/24 24PLN-00263 3950
Fabian
Way
Private
Education
Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior
modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story
commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately
4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to
private education to accommodate Girls Middle school.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM.
NOI Sent
10/24/2024.
Early ARB 11/21
CEQA Pending.
Streamlined
Housing
Development
Review
10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997
Fabian
Way
Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to
deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 &
3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to
construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295
multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low-
income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike
parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering
spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed
to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development
Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus
Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General
Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density
Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111)
NOI sent 1/16/25
Master Sign
Program
11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340
Portage
Av
Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID
Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall
signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy
signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium
Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental
Assessment: Pending.
NOI sent 1/09/25
Minor
Architectural
Review
12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El
Camino
Real
Restaurant 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
Site and
Design &
Conditional
Use Permit
12/8/24 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. 12
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 1
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: February 20, 2025
Report #: 2502-4123
TITLE
Ad Hoc Committee Report: Review Ad Hoc committee Report on Objective Standards for
Townhomes and Provide Direction to Staff
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends continuing the Ad Hoc committee report on objective standards for
townhomes to a date certain, March 6, 2025.
BACKGROUND
When the Objective Design Standards for Housing Development Projects were adopted in July
2022, it was understood that modifications to these standards would likely be needed.
Accordingly, an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Board member Hirsch and Vice Chair Chen was
tasked to review the adopted standards and suggest changes to the full Board.
Previous discussions and presentations by the Ad Hoc Committee occurred on November 17,
2022, December 1, 2022, December 15, 2022, and April 20, 2023.
Additional time is needed before this item can be fully presented to the full Board.
AUTHOR/TITLE:
ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 13
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: February 20, 2025
Report #: 2501-4022
TITLE
Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects
(2020-2024)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Review the attached list of 28 projects reviewed by the ARB since 2020.
2. Discuss the ARB Design Awards, including evaluation criteria; timeline; and awards
categories.
3. Decide on award winners.
BACKGROUND
Since the last meeting, the list of potential projects has been reduced to 28 locations
(Attachment A). The project list was originally grouped into five different areas of the City to
allow the current board members to conduct site or “drive by” visits of properties prior to this
discussion. The goal of this meeting is to further narrow the list of projects down and decide on
winning projects. Each board member should come ready to the hearing with information
about a handful of projects they would like to nominate.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation Criteria and Process
Feedback from the December 19th and January 16th ARB meetings revealed that a majority of
the ARB supported awarding five awards. No award categories were selected during these
previous meeting. Instead, through the process of narrowing down the list of projects, five
awards will be chosen. The goal of this meeting will be to further narrow down the list of
projects to see which five projects should be awarded.
Timing of the awards
As mentioned at the previous meetings, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) celebrates
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2
National Architecture Week during the week of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, April 13th.
Contingent on the selection of the award-winning properties at this meeting, staff finds that an
Award Ceremony in May or June would be reasonable to accommodate.
Display of Winning Projects The bank of televisions in the City Hall lobby will again be an option
to display the winning projects, as well as the City’s webpages. In previous years, a reception
was held in the lobby and community meeting room of City Hall prior to the Council meeting
where the awards were presented to the winning teams.
Award Categories
The ARB may be ready to decide on award winning projects at this meeting. Based on the
discussion of the 28 projects, award categories should be established.
NEXT STEPS
Staff suggests that the ARB review the revised list and photos detailed in the presentation of
this item to determine what projects are award winning and what categories of awards should
be given.
The ARB may also wish to consult past ARB members to assist in the selection and write-ups of
award winners. Staff typically contacts the award winners with an official letter and prepares
the proclamation for Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: List of ARB-Reviewed Projects
AUTHOR/TITLE:
ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Permit # Type Work Description
695 Arastradero 20PLN-00182 Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery
4256 EL CAMINO REAL 18PLN-00096 Commerical
Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,300 Square Foot Commercial Building and
Construction of a new Five-Story approximately 51,300 Square Foot, 96 Room Hotel with Below-Grade Parking. A
Director's Adjustment is Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space
Dimensions.
4115 EL CAMINO REAL 19000-01376 Mixed Use 7 Unit Mixed-Use
3877 EL CAMINO REAL 19PLN-00068 Mixed Use Compadres Mixed Use Project
3705 EL CAMINO REAL 18PLN-00136 Housing 59 Affordable Units at Wilton Court
2100 EL CAMINO REAL 20PLN-00247 Commerical
Approval of a Proposed Grocery Store Related to Planning Code Ordinance Number 5069 (College Terrace
Centre) Based on the Finding That the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would be Comparable in Quality of Produce and
Services as Previous Grocers at this Same Location
1250 PAGE MILL RD 21PLN-00092 Commerical
Minor Review to allow façade improvements, including the installation of new doors and windows on the
southern and western facade of Building 4 within an existing exterior storefront window-wall system.
Modifications also include an outdoor dining patio and landscaping on the Southwest Corner of the building.
3215 PORTER DR 19PLN-00237 Mixed Use
Request for Major Architectural Review for the Construction of a New 22,029 Square Foot Two Story Office
Building on a vacant lot within Stanford Research Park at 3215 Porter Drive. The new building will include
1,100 sq ft of amenity space, landscape improvements to the site, above and below ground parking facilities,
and upgrades to the driveway entry to the site.
620 EMERSON ST 19PLN-00326 Commerical
Minor Board level Architectural Review to allow to Allow Changes to a Previously Approved ARB Project (17PLN-
00331) for the Construction of a for construction of a new 2,756 square foot commercial building that will have
an exterior garden element. The first and second floor will be an expansion of the existing NOBU restaurant at
180 Hamilton Avenue.
555 MIDDLEFIELD RD 19PLN-00413 Commerical
Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Modifications to the
Facade of an Existing Medical Office Building and Other Minor Site Improvements.
300 Pasteur DR 21PLN-00235 Hospital
Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition of Approximately 37,000 sf to an
Existing Stanford Hospital Building to Meet Seismic Standards and Enable Renovation of Existing Patient Rooms,
and Associated Landscape Changes. Zoning District: HD.
588 webster 19000-02949 Residential 3 story apartment building with 19 units, 6,995 SF of commerical space and below grade parking,
429 university AV 18PLN-00240 Mixed-use
revisions to 14PLN-00222 that approved the mixed use building. This project is still under review and not
complete.
180 EL CAMINO REAL Commercial L'Occitane Facade Remodel
180 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00049 Commerical
? Review application to allow the demolition of an existing 8,075 square foot building and the construction of
two retail spaces totaling 11,799 square feet, the relocation of utilities in the proposed project area and an
update to the pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
180 , BLDG B EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00155 Commerical
(RH) Minor Review application to allow exterior modifications including changes to plaster, metal color, and
modification of minor architectural details.
180 , STE 0 EL CAMINO REAL 19PLN-00110 Commerical
(RH) Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Located in the Stanford
Shopping Center and Construction of a New Three-Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500
Square Feet, Two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet Each and Construction of a new stand alone
retail building, Approximate 28,000 square feet. (Total square feet 78,500).
180 , STE 002B EL CAMINO REAL 20PLN-00003 Commerical
Review to Allow the Construction of a Two-Story Retail Building (Building FF Wilkes Bashford) of 28,714 Square
Feet Located in the Stanford Shopping Center.
180, STE 16B EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00122 Commerical
Peloton's new storefront façade, storefront glazing, and new signage at their new location (16B, Bldg. C - Bed
Bath & Body Works) within the Stanford Shopping Center. The application includes a request for a Sign Exception
for a sign that does not comply with the Master Tenant Façade & Sign (MTSF) program for the Stanford Shopping
Center & the Municipal Code Sign Area Allowance.
180 , STE BB1130A EL CAMINO REAL 21PLN-00326 Commerical
180 El Camino Real [21PLN-00326]: Request by Jason Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford
University, for Major Architectural Review of ALO Yoga façade improvements and signage at Stanford Shopping
Center
180 , STE D71 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00028 Commerical
180 El Camino Real [22PLN-00028]: Request by Jason Smith, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford
University, for Major Architectural Review of Brilliant Earth façade improvements and signage at Stanford
Shopping Center,
180, STE E700A EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00237 Commerical
Minor Review Board (ARB) review for Sushi Roku restaurant (formally Yucca De Lac) and CUP for alcohol
service at Space #700B, Bldg. E (#E700B) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new
façade, new storefront glazing, outdoor patios and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete
interior remodel.
180 , STE E715 EL CAMINO REAL 22PLN-00070 Commerical
Major Architectural Review Board (ARB) and CUP submittal for Hummus Mediterranean Kitchen ( Formally
Cocola Bakery ) Space # 715, Bldg. E (#E715) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include
new oak infill panels, new entry façade, new bi-fold doors, signage, outdoor seating. Interior improvements will
include complete interior remodel.
Address
Item 3
Attachment A: List of ARB
Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 16
180 , STE V820B EL CAMINO REAL 23PLN-00009 Commerical
Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new
storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus at the Stanford Shopping Center.
2585 E BAYSHORE RD 21PLN-00121 Commerical
Minor Board Level Architectural Review application to allow the removal and replacement of building façade
materials, addition of outdoor patio/employee amenity space, replacement of rooftop mechanical equipment,
new landscaping throughout the site and changes to the parking lot.
2850 W BAYSHORE RD 21PLN-00177 Residential
Request for a Major Architectural Review to allow for the demolition of an existing office building and
construction of 48 townhomes in eight, six-unit buildings, with associated private streets, utilities, landscaping,
and amenities. The project includes right of way expansion for a bike lane and construction of a 14-foot sound
wall along West Bayshore Road across from the project frontage. In addition, the project includes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a residential use within the ROLM zone district.
1700 EMBARCADERO RD 21PLN-00191 Commerical
Major Site and Design application to allow the demolition of the former Ming's restaurant building to allow the
construction of a new two-story 26,336 square foot Mercedes Benz automotive dealership and service facility.
On site improvements will include surrounding customer and inventory parking spaces, surrounding landscaping
and construction of a dumpster enclosure.
Highway 101 Overpass Highway 101 Overpass Public Facility Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass & Adobe Creek Reach Trail
11 SCC David
3 Page Mill Yingxi
5 Downtown Peter
5 South Side Kendra
4 East Mousam
28 TOTAL
Item 3
Attachment A: List of ARB
Reviewed Projects
Packet Pg. 17
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 20, 2025
Report #: 2502-4161
TITLE
Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Minutes of January 16, 2025
AUTHOR/TITLE:
ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Steven.Switzer@CityofPaloAlto.org
1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Item 4
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 18
Page 1 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: January 16, 2025
Council Chambers and Zoom
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on January 16, 2025, in Council
Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 AM.
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
Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer presented the Director’s Report.
Anticipated for the ARB meeting on February 6, 2025, were a second hearing for a rezone and
multifamily residential project on 70 Encina Avenue as well as a first hearing on minor facade changes
for 164 Hamilton Avenue. A site & design and conditional use permit were recently submitted for 137
multifamily townhomes at 2100 Geng Road. The ARB will schedule two meetings per month starting in
February of 2025. There have not been any ad hoc committee assignments for 2025.
On Tuesday evening, the City Attorney and City Clerk sponsored a public government refresher on the
Brown Act, meeting organization, and some State Legislature changes. Once the video is available, Mr.
Switzer will send it to the Board.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 19
Page 2 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
Chair Rosenberg suggested a pre-ad hoc review of the Geng Road package for completeness without any
judgment. Chair Rosenberg stated she had some questions about standards for minimum size and
having multiple types of units on a property.
Board Member Adcock will be out on February 20, 2025. To ensure the ARB has a quorum, Chair
Rosenberg requested board members to email City staff to provide advance notification of any
scheduled absences.
Action Item
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN-00064]: Recommendation on
Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing
Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment with a Proposed Four-Story,
Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four
Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA
Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire
Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org
Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, was the project planner for 640 Waverley Street.
Today was the second formal hearing on this Major Architectural Review application. The project
proposed to replace two existing office buildings on a 5,227 square foot parcel with a new, four-story,
mixed-use development with ground-floor office and four residential units above. The total floor area
ratio (FAR) was 2.12:1, which was a decrease from the previously proposed 2.16:1. The parking garage
would have six parking stalls for residential use. The project was designed to meet the intent of the
objective standards; therefore, the project was processed as a Major Architectural Review. This project
was subject to context-based design criteria, downtown design guidelines, CD-C Zone District
requirements, and ARB findings.
Ms. Raybould highlighted the modifications made in response to the ARB’s comments and concerns
voiced at the previous hearing. The applicant provided more information and diagrams of parking
procedures with the car lift in open and closed positions. Working in conjunction with the neighboring
property owner on an acceptable design, the applicant will use a different material for the fourth floor
level and has refined the design of the outdoor area. To allow more visibility, space was added between
the slats of the privacy screening on the frontage. Details were added to show the planter design and
some modifications to the planter locations. SWA (landscape architect) prepared a memorandum to
explain how the plants would be maintained long term. Staff added conditions of approval for long-term
plant maintenance to require implementation of the measures presented in the SWA memo.
The ARB could not make a recommendation at the last hearing because the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review was not complete but CEQA review was now complete. The City in
conjunction with David J. Powers & Associates prepared a 15183 streamlined review. As required under
EIR, mitigation measures were implemented related to noise and vibrations to protect the neighboring
properties and residents. Standard conditions of approval were incorporated for the protection of
cultural resources.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 20
Page 3 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
Staff recommended that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of
Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to conditions of
approval.
Chair Rosenberg asked board members if they had any new disclosures since the previous hearing on
this application and whether they had visited the site. Vice Chair Chen visited the site on Tuesday. Vice
Chair Chen was not present for the previous hearing but she watched the video. Board Members Baltay
and Hirsch visited the site yesterday and this morning.
The ARB did not have any questions for staff.
Ken Hayes from Hayes Group Architects made a presentation on behalf of his clients, Clarissa Shen and
James Lin. Ben Waldo from SWA was present on Zoom. Mason Hayes was the project architect and
designer.
Mr. Hayes detailed their responses to the feedback heard from the ARB in June. The basement was for
residential parking and storage. The garage lift was depicted in A01.0. The roof and planter above the
entry were eliminated. A canopy would be used to protect the entry. The third floor terrace above the
residential entry was scaled back. Fixed planters were added to Stair #2 at the landing of the second,
third, and fourth floors. Creeping fig could be watered and maintained from the stair side. SWA provided
a memo outlining landscape maintenance provisions. There would be permanent irrigation to all in-
ground and raised planter areas. All private areas would have quarterly landscape maintenance. The
ground level and common areas would have monthly landscape maintenance. Landscape maintenance
would include replacing dead plant material, fixing irrigation systems, pruning, and weeding. A physical
sample of the metal privacy screen and representative mockup were provided to the ARB. The resident-
operable metal privacy screen would have 2-inch spaces between 1-inch bars. Modifications were made
to the north elevation to reduce concrete wall exposure to 636 Waverley. An additional carve-out was
made to the concrete wall and the positions of carve-outs were coordinated with recesses at 636
Waverley to maximize shared light and air. The project had support of the neighbors on either side of
the proposed building.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Christopher Kao liked the density and landscape of 636 Waverley. Mr. Kao thought that 640
Waverley stood out in its current state and had been wondering when it would be renovated.
Mr. Kao was a supporter of this project and believed it would beautify this part of Palo Alto.
2. Ms. Raybould mentioned that the ARB was sent an email of Stephen Levy’s comment. Mr. Levy
lived near this project and had expressed his support.
Mr. Hayes provided the following responses to Chair Rosenberg’s questions. You could not walk out the
paseo to the rear parking lot because it was private property owned by the City. A gate on the rear for
emergency egress had not been considered. As soon as someone activated the gate in the basement
garage, the light on the bollard would turn red at the ground-floor level. There were eight spaces in the
basement to accommodate six cars, ADA unloading, and EVSE. The space to the right of the car lift was
to allow residents to take their trash up the car lift. The set provided to the ARB included a page that
diagrams the residential trash facility in the basement.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 21
Page 4 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
Vice Chair Chen suggested consideration of the puzzle parking system to save one space for cars to
maneuver in and out of the lift. Mr. Hayes provided the following answers to Vice Chair Chen’s
questions. In the basement, the car lift gate goes up. The garage was for residential parking. There was
no commercial parking. The garage was 18 feet deep. The contractor was working on the pricing of the
proposed lift. If the cost of the lift was insurmountable, Mr. Hayes wanted flexibility to reduce the
garage to 10 feet deep, which eliminated the possibility of future parking. Colors and materials were
provided to the ARB. The smooth and textured concrete would be the same color. The metal privacy
screening would have a dark rib finish. The canopy goes across the front area but did not extend all the
way down the paseo. To accentuate the geometry of the paseo, the structure goes across a few feet.
The main door to the ground-floor commercial would be parallel with the street on the right side. The
supporting system for the steel plate canopy consisted of a rod holding the horizontal T section
supported by the concrete wall. The material was changed on the fourth floor where there was a tree
garden. The steel plate would be painted to match the M2 metal color. The steel plate would come
down on the outside of the concrete curb at the bottom and most likely attach into the concrete to
avoid waterproofing issues.
Mr. Hayes provided the following replies to Board Member Adcock’s questions. The fourth floor vertical
boards would be western red cedar tongue-in-groove outside; either tongue-in-groove or shiplap inside
on the ceiling. The plate canopy depicted to the right of the garden was M2 color and of similar material
to the front canopy. The bottom of the canopy on the fourth floor would be 8 feet from the finished
floor. The canopy would be located at the main entrance to the fourth floor unit to provide protection at
the elevator until you were under the roof. The textured architectural concrete had vertical corrugations
in a 2-inch pattern modulated with smooth concrete, all cast in place.
In response to Board Member Hirsch’s request for a description of how the lift would work in an
emergency, Mr. Hayes explained that the lift would go down and you have to walk to the exit stair if the
power went out. Mr. Hayes directed Board Member Hirsch to A306 and A308 to address his questions
about the residential entry. You enter through a secured gate. It is open to the sky in that zone except
for a steel plate canopy spanning the gap between the concrete wall and the building at 8 feet as shown
with a thin line labeled 15 feet, and then it is open to the building beyond. The residential canopy was
consistent with the commercial canopy. The main wall on the first floor would be 12 inches in from the
property line. Vines would be planted on the wall facing the City parking lot. A 5-foot daylight opening
was shown with a dotted line. The stair was in alignment with the concrete wall on the other side and
would have creeping fig. A notch going from the third floor down to the first floor would provide fire
access to the rear bedroom window. The wall with 636 Waverley goes out to 1 foot from the property
line and runs the full height with the balconies cutting into it. At the fourth floor, the roof above hangs
out. The second floor terrace is on top of the commercial space on the first floor. The proposed building
was about 10 feet shorter than the existing building.
Mr. Hayes addressed Board Member Adcock’s questions. The planter was about 3 feet tall at the ground
floor. In reference to Diagram #1 of the car lift, the red light at bollard height would be visible as you
come down the street from either direction. Parking protocols would be reviewed with the residents,
such as not pulling into the driveway when the light is red and there was no guest parking.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 22
Page 5 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
In reply to Chair Rosenberg asking if these units were for sale or rent, Mr. Hayes answered they were
condominiums. With no further questions from the Board, Chair Rosenberg closed the public portion of
the meeting and opened it up to internal ARB discussion.
Chair Rosenberg thought the project was stunning and the landscaping was lovely. Chair Rosenberg
believed that increasing the spacing between the slats of the panels added vitality and vibrancy to the
front facade of the building. Chair Rosenberg found it interesting that when residents operated their
sliding panels it would seem as if the building was alive and moving. Chair Rosenberg appreciated the
efforts the applicant was taking to provide parking for residents even though parking was not required.
Chair Rosenberg thought it was clever to utilize the car lift for trash mobility. Chair Rosenberg believed
that the modifications made since the last hearing would increase the beauty of this property.
Board Member Adcock thought this was a beautiful project and a great addition to downtown. Board
Member Adcock hoped the thin roof at the top would be kept as the applicant moved forward to
execution of this design.
Vice Chair Chen was in favor of this project. Vice Chair Chen thought the circulation problem was
resolved smartly. Vice Chair Chen stated that the materials were selected carefully and were of high
quality. The massing showed that the applicant took into consideration the adjacent building. Vice Chair
Chen’s only concern was the color of the concrete and metal was too dark, especially next to the light
color of the adjacent historic building. Vice Chair Chen suggested the applicant consider some warmer
and lighter colors, and maybe add wood features to the lower levels instead of only at the top floor.
Board Member Hirsch opined the darker browns were severely dark and the concentration of the
amount of dark materials was excessive. Board Member Hirsch thought it was a terrific building with
beautiful details. The applicant was respectful of the neighboring building. The screening on the top
floor behind the garden was a nice idea but Board Member Hirsch thought if the screening material was
a lighter color it might be visually nicer for the neighbors. The apartments seemed to be scaled well.
Board Member Hirsch wondered if there was enough room for storage. In the next phase of detailed
design, the open counter could easily have storage below. Board Member Hirsch loved the project and
was anxious to see it built.
Board Member Baltay fully supported the project as presented, thought it was a fabulous building and
would be a wonderful addition to the town. Board Member Baltay believed the applicant provided a
strong answer to every question. Board Member Baltay cautioned the owner that this architect needed
to be involved throughout the construction because there were many details that would make a big
difference if not executed well.
Board Member Baltay moved that the ARB recommend approval as presented. Chair Rosenberg
seconded the motion.
Board Member Hirsch made a friendly amendment to reevaluate the darker wood and metal elements,
perhaps bringing them back to an ARB ad hoc committee. Chair Rosenberg did not want to hold up this
project when the majority of the ARB seemed okay with it as presented but would like all ARB members
to come to an agreement if possible. To not delay the process, Ms. Raybould stated that staff strongly
recommended having the director involved instead of an ad hoc committee. Discussion ensued. To
reach a consensus, Board Member Baltay recommended that the architect consider lighter colors but
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 23
Page 6 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
allow the architect and staff to make the final decision. Mr. Hayes mentioned that once they received
the concrete samples, they would modify the darkness of the metal if they thought it was necessary.
Board Member Baltay added to his motion that the ARB would like the architect to consider a lighter
color at their discretion, as reviewed by staff. Chair Rosenberg seconded the amended. The motion
passed 5-0 by roll call vote.
The ARB took a break from 9:45 AM and resumed at 9:51 AM.
Study Session
3. Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects
(2020-2024)
Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer stated the project list was narrowed down since the last
meeting from 79 projects to the 64 projects presented in the packet. Each board member was assigned
a list of projects to review and report back on for today’s discussion. After narrowing down their
assigned list, each board member would eventually select five projects they felt deserved an award.
Staff recommended that today the ARB discuss the timeline, evaluation criteria and process. At the
meeting on December 19, 2024, the majority of the ARB supported awarding five awards. Today, staff
wanted the ARB to establish the date of the award ceremony.
Chair Rosenberg pointed out there would be Board turnover in April as a result of the ARB elections.
Having the award ceremony before then would be difficult. An award ceremony in May or June was
more likely. Based on internal meetings for agenda forecasting, it appeared to Mr. Switzer there was
availability at future ARB hearings to have this discussion come back, so it could potentially move
forward before the ARB turnover.
Mr. Switzer received photos of three projects from Board Member Baltay. In reply to Board Member
Baltay asking if the project had to be complete to be potentially eligible for an award, Chair Rosenberg
and Mr. Switzer answered yes. Board Member Baltay thought two projects in the downtown area were
not complete at the last award cycle but were not on his list. Board Member Baltay saw three projects
on his list were actively under construction and nothing had been done on five projects. Board Member
Baltay was concerned about not having a comprehensive list of applicants. Vice Chair Chen stated that
anything under construction was not a viable candidate because it was not complete, as opposed to
being substantially complete enough to see the building. Mr. Switzer explained that the list had all the
projects that had gone before the ARB, whether major or minor. The projects in gray on the list were
carried over from the previous award cycle because they were not completed or were under
construction at the time.
Board Member Baltay stated that although 429 University was not complete, the building was built and
it ought to be on the list as a consideration. Board Member Baltay did not believe 488 Webster was
complete before the last awards and he thought it was a very nice apartment building, a good work of
architecture, and it should be on the list as a consideration.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 24
Page 7 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
Board Members will make a note of which projects on their list were not completed, and staff will
include those projects on the list for consideration of an award in five years. Chair Rosenberg told board
members to determine if a project was substantially complete in their professional opinion. Chair
Rosenberg recalled the projects in the last awards ceremony had everything completed. Mr. Switzer
suggested the definition of completion be the final inspection of the project. Ms. Raybould agreed that
final inspection was used in the past to determine which projects were included. Board Member Baltay
believed the Board should exercise subjective judgment on whether a building was complete. For
example, 429 University had not passed final inspection, the owner was in a lawsuit with the electrician,
but the building had been complete for years and the Board can judge the quality of the architecture.
Board Member Hirsch remarked that a project completed five years ago would be out of touch with
what was recently finished. Board Member Adcock noted the Mercedes Benz project looked close to
completion but landscaping was in process and there were cones and construction vehicles.
On Board Member Adcock’s list of 12 projects, 2850 Bayshore was under construction and 7 or 8
projects had not started construction.
Board Member Hirsch wondered if the chosen projects should be a mix of commercial and residential or
to prioritize certain project types. Chair Rosenberg replied that part of the ARB discussion could be to
either choose the best of commercial and best of residential or to select any project felt to be
outstanding regardless of type.
For the next ARB discussion on this topic, Chair Rosenberg requested board members to put together a
short list of the projects they thought were viable, take a photograph or download an online photo, and
present your chosen projects to the Board.
Board Member Baltay stated that 620 Emerson, 555 Middlefield, and 300 Pasteur should remain on his
list. Board Member Baltay wanted to add 588 Webster and 429 University to his list. Board Member
Baltay had not visited 300 Pasteur, so he did not know if it was complete.
Chair Rosenberg had not visited 575 or 810 Los Trancos Road but will do so shortly. Chair Rosenberg
mentioned that 695 Arastradero and 3877 El Camino Real were at top of her list for an award. Additional
projects remaining on her list for consideration were 4256 El Camino Real, 4115 El Camino Real, and
3705 El Camino Real.
Board Member Baltay questioned if the 575 and 810 Los Trancos projects fit into the ARB awards
program. Ms. Raybould noted they were not visible from the street. Chair Rosenberg thought a single
family residence on Forest received an honorable mention at the last ARB awards ceremony. Board
Member Hirsch recalled it being a multiple dwelling. If the Board did not think single family homes were
typically within the ARB’s purview, Chair Rosenberg suggested removing them from the list. Board
Member Baltay said the ARB did not evaluate the architectural merits of the single family home design
but instead was advising Council on an environmental issue and was focused on the site impact,
clearance to a creek and needed setback. Board Member Baltay did not think that type of advice was
worthy of giving an award to and the Board concurred.
Board Member Baltay recalled a hotel next to Redwoods condominiums came forward to the ARB. Staff
explained that the hotel was never developed, their entitlement expired, and they never constructed.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 25
Page 8 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
Board Member Hirsch removed 650 Clark Way and 180 El Camino Real Suite E705A from his list. At 180
El Camino Real, Board Member Hirsch liked the design of Arhaus at Suite V8208 and Brilliant Earth at
Suite D71. At 180 El Camino Real Suite E700A, Chair Rosenberg thought Sushi Roku was lovely and she
suggested that Board Member Hirsch go back and take photos. Board Member Hirsch’s list of projects to
consider for an award included Restoration Hardware at 180 El Camino Real Building B, Brilliant Earth,
Sushi Roku, and Arhaus.
Vice Chair Chen had three completed projects on her list: A grocery store at 2100 El Camino Real, 1250
Page Mill Road, and 3215 Porter Drive. A good potential for nomination this year was 3215 Porter Drive
in Stanford Research Park. Under construction and had a good potential for an award in 2030 was 250
Cambridge Avenue.
Board Member Adcock had not visited 2585 E. Bayshore Road and she needed to research the extent of
work; 2850 W. Bayshore Road was under construction but she will visit to check the status. Ms.
Raybould advised that the project should be saved for the 2030 awards if it was not complete. Board
Member Adcock also kept the Highway 101 overpass on her list and 1700 Embarcadero Road looked
close to completion.
For the ARB meeting on February 20, Chair Rosenberg encouraged fellow board members to provide
photos of the projects they nominate for an award and the Board will have a discussion. Staff will send
out a revised short list based on today’s meeting.
Staff needed one or two months to create the awards but they will try to keep it to one month, by
March or April. The new Board composition could come in April. Staff suggested deferring selection of
the award ceremony date until the next ARB discussion. The bylaws mention coordination of the date
with City Council for proclamations, to utilize the bank of monitors in the lobby, and to add to the
webpage. Staff would notify the applicants of their awards. Award recipients need time to prepare their
boards for display. Chair Rosenberg wanted to know how long each step would take.
Board Member Baltay said all board members needed to supply staff with photos of the projects on
their list to make it clear to the ARB and the public which building was being talking about. For the
February 20 or subsequent meeting, Board Member Baltay asked if staff could provide a comprehensive
list of projects with all the feedback from board members and paste a photo for each project in the Excel
spreadsheet, being consistent on the formatting. Board Member Baltay suggested the Board
significantly narrow down the list at the February 20 meeting, and make the final decisions on the
winners at the February or March meeting. Board Member Baltay thought it would take six to eight
weeks for applicants to prepare the presentation information. Board Member Baltay recommended that
staff coordinate with the City Clerk’s Office on when was the best time for the award ceremony,
preferably May or June.
Board Member Hirsch knew the previous award winners were sent a list of standards for the mounts as
well as the appearance and dimensions of the boards. Mr. Switzer replied that winners would be
provided that information. Board Member Baltay suggested that staff look up the description of the
boards from the last award ceremony.
Board Member Baltay wondered if the Board should request of staff at our next meeting to have the
date of the award ceremony finalized, allowing staff two to four weeks to coordinate with the other City
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 26
Page 9 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
departments on the best time. At that time, have a tentative list of how we want to see this presented.
Board Member Hirsch thought the ARB could make their final decisions in one meeting. Mr. Switzer
reminded the Board that last time it took five hearings based on the administrative record. Board
Member Baltay thought the ARB should collectively agree to allow two more hearings to make a
decision but it was great if it could be done in one. Board Member Baltay said it would be helpful if the
Excel spreadsheet was vetted thoroughly by staff so the Board did not have to sort out the projects
under construction.
Chair Rosenberg told board members to send project photos to Mr. Switzer. Mr. Switzer will compile the
list along with the information that was requested today and add the photos sent to him by the Board.
For the last award ceremony, Board Member Baltay recalled Board Member Hirsch ensured that the
public libraries had a place to display the award-winning plaques. Board Member Baltay thought it was
very successful. Board Member Baltay suggested that staff reach out to the Library division to
coordinate a schedule.
Board Member Hirsch was disappointed that maybe only one Councilmember attended the last award
ceremony. Board Member Hirsch viewed the ARB awards as an exercise in educating the Council on
nicely designed buildings in Palo Alto, so it was important for the entire Council to attend if possible.
Board Member Baltay thought it was the City Clerk’s job to communicate to the Council. Ms. Raybould
responded that she would work on it.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024
Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written. Vice Chair Chen seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote.
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas
Chair Rosenberg announced she was taking part in the Council for Housing Development in Downtown
Palo Alto. The first meeting was on Monday night. Chair Rosenberg will share with the ARB anything
discussed at the meetings that she felt was interesting or pertinent.
Board Member Hirsch mentioned there would be committee meetings and community meetings as the
plans progressed for San Antonio Road and Cubberley. Board Member Hirsch wanted to attend the
Cubberley meeting next week and report back to the ARB. The San Antonio Road Committee had not yet
formed but Board Member Hirsch wondered if there was an interest in having an ARB member at those
meetings. Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, stated that staff hoped within the next
couple months to obtain Council’s approval of a contract for a consultant for the San Antonio Road Area
Plan process.
Board Member Hirsch stated that the ARB was generally focused on specific buildings but felt that the
ARB should be responsible for making comments about general planning and urban design issues. Board
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 27
Page 10 of 10
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 1/16/25
Member Hirsch thought the Board made significant comments in the discussion about El Camino Real’s
district. Ms. Raybould thanked the ARB for being a valuable resource to Palo Alto.
Adjournment
Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:01 AM.
Item 4
Attachment A: Minutes of
January 16, 2025
Packet Pg. 28