HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-06 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Regular Meeting
Thursday, March 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. Board member 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
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 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, March 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. Board member 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
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.
3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 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, March 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. Board member 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 StaffAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 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: March 6, 2025
Report #: 2502-4188
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 20, 2025
•Study Session: California Ave Signage
•180 El Camino: Delarosa Façade Upgrades
•Ad Hoc: 164 Hamilton Avenue Façade Modifications
RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS
The following new ARB projects were submitted:
ADDRESS & RECORD #PROJECT DESCRIPTION
180 El Camino Real
(Formally Terrain Café)
25PLN-00027
Minor Board review for Cedar & Sage restaurant (formally
Terrain Cafe) at Space #1301, Bldg. DD at the Stanford
Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new textured
plaster and painted façade, new storefront glazing, and bi-
folding door system, remodeled outdoor patio, new
retractable canopy system, new railing, landscape planters,
and new signage. Interior improvements will include partial
interior remodel. No change of use, no new square footage.
540 University Ave
25PLN-00030
Preliminary Board review to allow for demolition of two
existing buildings at 530 and 540 University Ave and the
construction of a new 30,375 sq. ft. commercial three-story
building. With ground floor retail and office, second and third
level office spaces and a private roof top terrace for the office
users.
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
PTC Spilt vote, but
moved to Council,
Date TBD.
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 10
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San
Antonio
Housing –
198 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE
65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition
of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-
story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental
apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental:
Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD.
NOI Sent 5/23/2024.
Ad Hoc (Baltay,
Chen)
Streamlined
Housing
Development
Review
5/28/24 24PLN-00152
24PLN-00023
(Prelim)
4335-
4345 El
Camino
Housing –
29 Units
Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing
development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El
Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial
building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building
(4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached
residential townhome-style condominiums with associated
utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service
Commercial).
NOI Sent 6/27/2024.
ARB 9/19/24.
Pending Resubmittal
of Plans.
Ad Hoc (Hirsch,
Baltay) reviewed
prelim
Major
Architectural
Review –
Builder’s
Remedy
6/10/24 24PLN-00161
24PLN-00048
(SB 330)
3781 El
Camino
Real
Housing –
177 units
Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple
existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737
& 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388
Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family
residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of
above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are
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
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
residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms.
Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various
(SB330)
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
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 12
Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes
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
Minor
Architectural
Review
2/6/2025 25PLN-00027 180 El
Camino
Real
Restaurant Minor Board review for Cedar & Sage restaurant (formally
Terrain Cafe) at Space #1301, Bldg. DD at the Stanford Shopping
Center. Exterior improvements include new textured plaster
and painted façade, new storefront glazing, and bi-folding door
system, remodeled outdoor patio, new retractable canopy
system, new railing, landscape planters, and new signage.
Interior improvements will include partial interior remodel. No
change of use, no new square footage.
1st review cycle due
on 3/8/2025
Preliminary
Architectural
Review
2/5/2025 25PLN-00030 540
University
Ave
Commercial Preliminary Board review to allow for demolition of two
existing buildings at 530 and 540 University Ave and the
construction of a new 30,375 sq. ft. commercial three-story
building. With ground floor retail and office, second and third
level office spaces and a private roof top terrace for the office
users.
1st review cycle due
on 3/7/2025
Item 1
Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects
Packet Pg. 13
Item No. 2. Page 1 of 3
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: March 6, 2025
Report #: 2502-4171
TITLE
Ad Hoc Committee Report: Review Ad Hoc Committee Report on Objective Standards for
Townhomes and Provide Direction to Staff
RECOMMENDATION
Review Ad Hoc Committee report on objective standards for townhomes and provide direction
to staff on recommended revisions to the objective standards.
BACKGROUND
This is the conclusion of the discussion and presentations given by the Ad Hoc Committee on
November 17, 2022,1 December 1, 2022,2 December 15, 2022,3 April 20, 2023,4 and March 7,
2024. The minutes of the March 7, 2024, hearing are included in Attachment C.
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. Hence,
the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chair formed an Ad Hoc Committee to review the
adopted standards and suggest changes to the full ARB, with a focus of revising the standards
to consider townhome designs. This Ad Hoc Committee was comprised of Boardmember Hirsch
and Vice Chair Chen.
The Ad Hoc Committee spent considerable time examining Palo Alto’s Townhome communities,
visiting similar projects in neighboring communities, and researching online. To inform the
discussion, the Committee presented photographs and illustrations that were used to inform its
recommended changes. The presentation provided to the ARB on March 7, 2024, is included in
Attachment D. Attachment E includes existing figures from the City’s Context-Based Design
1 Minutes from the November 17, 2022, hearing are available online at:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15510&compileOutputType=1
2 Minutes from the December 1, 2022, hearing are available online at:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15524&compileOutputType=1
3 Minutes from the December 15, 2022, hearing are available online at:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15538&compileOutputType=1
4 Minutes from the April 20, 2023, hearing are available online at:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=11275&compileOutputType=1
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 14
Item No. 2. Page 2 of 3
Criteria standards, which have been added at the Ad Hoc Committee’s request to facilitate
discussion.
On March 7, 2024, the ARB went through a narrowed down list of items and reached general
agreement on the final list of recommendations to staff. These recommendations were to be
considered by staff when considering future code amendments to the objective design
standards in Chapter 18.24, if directed by Council. The Chair at the time, Boardmember Baltay,
requested that the Ad Hoc Committee review the meeting minutes of the March 7, 2024,
hearing and put together a single list of the ARB‘s conclusions on direction to staff, so that the
ARB could make a formal recommendation on the final list. Attachment A includes a summary
of these conclusions.
In addition, Attachment B includes additional annotations in underline and highlight. The areas
in underline are additional modifications the Ad Hoc Committee suggests adding to the final
recommendations for clarity. The highlighted areas are additional modifications, suggested by
at least one of the Ad Hoc members, for the ARB to further consider.
Any Zoning Code amendments proposed by staff based on these recommendations, if directed
by Council, would be subject to Planning and Transportation Commission review and
recommendation, prior to Council review and action. Therefore, these amendments would not
affect any projects currently on file with the Department of Planning and Development
Services.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed recommendation to staff to consider these modifications would not directly have
a fiscal impact. Any future action to update the objective standards would be done at Council’s
direction and would require additional staff resources to prepare a proposed ordinance for the
Planning and Transportation Commission’s consideration and Council decision.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The ARB held six study sessions, as noted above, all of which were noticed in accordance with
the Brown Act and which provided an opportunity for public comment on the ARB’s
consideration of recommendations. No public comment was received at any of these study
sessions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed recommendation to staff is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed project
would not have any significant effects on the environment. Any future proposed ordinance to
amend the objective standards would be evaluated in accordance with CEQA at that time.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Summary of Recommendations to Staff
Attachment B: Draft Summary of Recommendations to Staff with Annotations
Attachment C: Meeting Minutes March 7, 2024
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee Presentation on Objective Standards for Townhomes
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 15
Item No. 2. Page 3 of 3
Attachment E: Existing Figures from Context-Based Design Criteria
Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information
Claire Raybould, AICP, Interim Manager, Current
Planning
(650) 329-2116
Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner
(650) 329-2321
Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Steven.Switzer@cityofpaloalto.org
5 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: ARB@cityofpaloalto.org
Item 2
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 16
Townhome Objective Standards Recommendations:
Townhome definition: 1) exclusively residential, 2) to be vertically single stacked building type units with
a minimum of two stories, 3) at least two exterior walls that face openly and are not adjacent to other
buildings, and 4) the unit needed to have a private entrance.
1. Treatment of End or Corner Units
Corner units or end units that face two streets (public or private) must have a change in the roofline to a
different elevation unless the entire unit’s parapet or roof line is different from the adjacent unit and
must have two or more of the following elevation treatments so that it is distinguished from the
repetitive units.
a. minimum 5’ deep covered entry patio or minimum of 4’ deep wrap around patio or balconies.
b. A wrap around corner window or 2’ projecting bay window on one or more floors.
c. A tower element that may penetrate the height limitation of the RM-30 but does not exceed 50
feet in height.
d. A setback area of differing material and/or color from the major façade material.
e. A balcony extending a minimum of 4’ from the face of the building and is 6’ wide.
2. Community Circulation
The design of the Townhome project must integrate its internal pedestrian, bike and vehicular system
with the surrounding areas to maintain connectivity and continuity.
Tandem parking is permitted for a maximum of 40% of the units but must be equally distributed
between the clusters.
Guest parking shall provide 20% of the total number of units. and must include at least one space for a
medium sized truck for delivery vehicles, individual unit service repair vehicle, etc. A minimum of 50% of
these spaces must be located within a lay-by or parking stall on the major streets of the project. The
parking spaces shall be no greater than 150 feet from the most remote unit.
3.Building Typology
Diversity of prototypes: < 1-acre lots: minimum 1 prototype; 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2 prototypes;
or > 2-acre lots = minimum 3 prototypes.
The difference between typologies must include a significant variation of building massing, unit sizes,
height massing, and the number of units per structure. End unit variations are not separate prototypes.
4. Landscape/ Open space
All Townhome projects must provide centrally located common green spaces or linear public pedestrian
paths such as Paseos equivalent to a minimum of 5% of the gross property area of the Townhomes. Such
areas must be exclusively for pedestrian use. Private unit entries or required front yards do not count
towards the requirement.
Common open space shall be functional and usable community gathering place for rest and play.
Minimum dimensions shall be 25’x 25’.
Major private street shall include at least one street tree for every 25 feet of linear feet.
Pedestrian pathways shall be paved with a different material than the vehicular pathways.
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Summary ARB
Recommendations to
Staff
Packet Pg. 17
5.Privacy
The exterior areas adjacent to first floor and separate from the required unit’s walkway and entry path
and entry door must be landscaped with shrubbery that separates it from the public sidewalk or be
defined by a private entry court with fencing or walls no greater than 3’-6” tall between units or the
public right-of-way.
15’ minimum between two end units.
6. Rhythm and Pattern
The maximum length of any linear grouping of Townhomes is 150 feet not including entry elements or
bay windows. Each unit must include a minimum front yard 5 feet deep by the width of the unit.
No more than 3 attached Townhomes within a cluster of 5 units or 4 in a cluster of 6 units can repeat the
same elevation, window format, surface pattern and cornice height. The maximum number of attached
units with common walls shall not exceed 7 units.
7. Materiality
The base building color treatment must include at least two colors and two basic materials. If the face of
the window trim elements and other façade defining trimming are 4” or larger, then the trim can be
considered the second color, if the trim is used on 70% of all windows.
Otherwise, a second color shall be used on a significant element of the façade such as a bay window or
large form defining area a minimum of 8’ by 8’.
An exception to this regulation allows a single color for each unit if the adjacent units have different
colors.
A maximum of 6 different colors are allowed per building.
8. Operation/ Services
Mailbox shall be equally distributed between the clusters and shall be located no greater than 150 feet
from the most remote unit, and trash enclosures shall be equally distributed between the clusters and
shall be located no greater than 250 feet from the most remote unit.
At least one space for a medium sized truck for delivery vehicles, individual unit service repair vehicle,
etc.
ARB Ad Hoc Objective Zoning Committee:
David Hirsch, Chairman
Yingxi Chen, Board member
Item 2
Attachment A: Draft
Summary ARB
Recommendations to
Staff
Packet Pg. 18
Townhome Objective Standards Recommendations:
Townhome definition: 1) exclusively residential units arranged in clusters with two end units
or cul-de-sac clusters with two wings and attached end units, 2) to be vertically single
stacked building type units with a minimum of two stories, 3) at least two exterior facing
walls. A more atypical townhome arrangement is an above grade platform including all of
the parking below and the townhome clusters above including the unbuilt areas as
pedestrian circulation space and common use space including landscaping.
1. All units within a cluster must consistently repeat common features per the following list
including materials and colors so that there is a consistent character to the entire
development. End units which face at least one public access road and one private vehicle
road must be emphasized in importance by a more inclusive set of exterior design features
per the following list. All other cluster units must include these selected features so that
there is a consistency and repetitive relationship of townhouse clusters.
2. All units in a cluster must select a minimum of two (three) from the following list of
elevation features for each townhome:
a. A minimum 5 foot deep by 5 foot wide covered or partially covered entry patio.
b. A wrap-around corner roofed patio or balconies a minimum of 4 feet deep and
minimum 6 foot wide on each side
c. A balcony extending a minimum of 4’ from the face of the building and is 6’ wide.
d. A variation in roof heights between townhome units.
e. A minimum 5 foot wide by two feet setback or projecting bay with or without glazing
on one or more facades.
f. A tower element that may penetrate the height limitation of the RM-30 but does not
exceed 50 feet in height.
g. A variation of window sizes and enframements or combination of windows and trims
that emphasize and define an otherwise flat, unbroken facade, such windows must
include a combinations of two or three windows and can include corner windows at
end units of clusters. A maximum unbroken width on each facade shall not exceed 8
feet.
h. The base building color treatment must include at least two colors and two basic
materials. If the face of the window trim elements and other façade defining
trimming are 4” or larger, then the trim can be considered the second color, if the
trim is used on 70% of all windows. (A maximum of three different colors and
materials per cluster not including window trim or railings, which must be one color
per cluster.)
Item 2
Attachment B: Draft
Summary of ARB
Recommendations to
Staff Annotated
Packet Pg. 19
i. A maximum of 6 different colors are allowed per building. An exception to this
regulation allows a single color for each unit if the adjacent units have different
colors. (An exception allows six different colors on 80% stucco projects with similar
facades.)
3. The design of the Townhome project must include a pedestrian, bike and vehicular
circulation design both within the project and to neighboring areas to ensure the
appropriate connectivity, continuity and safety,
a. Housing cluster parking and moving traffic, especially where garages are facing each
other on private streets at pedestrian crossings, must provide clear markings and
variation in the paving material to emphasize and comply with safety requirement.
b. In all projects larger than two acres, one or more pedestrian sidewalks (minimum of
4 feet wide) with an adjacent tree lined planting strip at the street edge, a minimum
of 2.5 feet to the curb, must be provided.
c. A maximum of 2 cars are permitted for each townhome. Tandem parking is
permitted for 40% of the units must be equally distributed per cluster.
d. Guest parking shall provide 20% of the total number of units.
e. On-site guest parking cannot exceed 150 feet from the most remote unit on-site.
f. Guest parking shall be disbursed throughout the project in designated lay-byes or
parking stalls.
g. One delivery space exclusively for a medium-sized delivery vehicle shall be provided
for each full acre,
h. Mailboxes shall be equally distributed between the clusters and shall be located no
greater than 150 feet from the most remote unit,
i. Trash enclosures shall be equally distributed between the clusters and shall be
located no greater than 250 feet from the most remote unit.
j. The distance between townhome facades (opposite from garage facade) of all front
entry units shall be 25 feet, not including porch or entry features. A minimum paved
path to all units must be 4 feet wide.
4. Diversity of prototypes: < 1-acre lots: minimum 1 prototype; 1 to 2-acre lots: minimum 2
prototypes; or > 2-acre lots = minimum 3 prototypes.
The difference between typologies must include a significant variation of building massing,
unit sizes, height massing, and the number of units per structure. End unit variations are
not separate prototypes.
Building Typology as described herein in relation to Townhomes is intended to mean a
variation in the massing, unit sizes and construction system from the format of the two or
three story townhome cluster. A physical description of this additional typology is
commonly called a multiple dwelling, which can exceed the townhome height limitation
Item 2
Attachment B: Draft
Summary of ARB
Recommendations to
Staff Annotated
Packet Pg. 20
and provides a single internal circulation to a significant number of apartment units of
varying sizes on each floor This change of typology is required for all housing projects
planned for parcels in excess of one acre. Under 18.18.110, the Context Based Design
Criteria, Figures 7-2; 7-3; and 7-4 are very useful illustrations of this concept of mixed
density development.
5. All Townhome projects must provide centrally located common green spaces or linear
public pedestrian paths such as Paseos equivalent to a minimum of 5% of the gross
property area of the Townhomes. Such areas must be exclusively for pedestrian use.
Private unit entries or required front yards do not count towards the requirement.
Common open space shall be functional and usable community gathering place for rest
and play. Minimum dimensions shall be 25’x 25’.
A minimum of 25% of this common use space must be landscaped with trees/ shrubs and
planted ground cover.
Item 2
Attachment B: Draft
Summary of ARB
Recommendations to
Staff Annotated
Packet Pg. 21
Page 1 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES: March 07, 2024
Council Chamber & Zoom
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on March 7, 2024 in Council Chambers
and virtual teleconference at 8:33 a.m.
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember
David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock
Absent: None
Oral Communications
Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were two cards submitted for public comment.
Kaitlyn Parkins on Zoom stated she was a coordinator of the glass collisions program from the American
Bird Conservancy and showed support for a bird safe design ordinance. They educated architects on
buildings were made safer, created resources for policy makers and advocates, and had developed a
testing and rating system for bird friendly materials. Manufactured environments were a hazard that
contributed to the decline of birds, such as collisions with building windows. Bird friendly designs did not
require a tradeoff views and sunlight the glass provided, as there were different options in the designs to
alter windows that provided safety. She commented that the elements of bird friendly designs needed to
be considered at the beginning of the project and conducted until the building was completed. Ms. Parkins
thanked the Board.
Lynda Heidman on Zoom was a resident of Palo Alto and wanted to discuss the bird safe designs and light
pollution. She said that birds did not see glass as an obstacle, either from transparency or it reflected an
image of a potential habitat. The Smithsonian stated that forty-four percent of fatal bird collisions
happened in mixed-commercial areas with buildings that were three to four stories high. Bird safe glass
designs needed to be required for all new construction, as well as existing buildings being retrofitted with
the options available to architects. The artificial lights and sky glow around the buildings disoriented and
harmed birds and gave two examples of how. Palo Alot sat on the Pacific Flyway that was critical to the
birds that migrated between the Arctic and South America in the Spring and Fall. Ms. Heidman thanked
the Board.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 22
Page 2 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no
Agenda changes, additions, or deletions.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda
items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects
Senior Planner Raybould reported there was a change in the agenda, and the March 21st hearing was
cancelled. On April 4th they planned on continuing the advanced water purification system project,
informational report on the stream setback ordinance, and added the work plan discussion for ARB’s next
agenda. April 18th the 660 University and North Venture coordinated area plan was being held; they
intended to release the draft EIR for the coordinated area plan on March 8th, and after the Study Session
the ARB and public would be allowed to make comments on the draft. A new project for the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park had come in with a formal application, and it had been taken in front of Council on
Monday and was in the initial review point. They had two SB 330 projects on 7381 El Camino Real for 169
residential rental units, and another on 3606 El Camino Real for 315 units; they included merging multiple
lots together that created the resulted parcel on the proposed Builders Remedy projects. She asked if an
ad hoc committee would be assigned to either project.
Chair Baltay responded yes and had looked at the list of what had not been assigned and asked if there
were projects missing such as the Buena Vista project.
Planner Raybould stated she had to look in her notes if he wanted to put a hold on the discussion.
Chair Baltay commented there were many projects that lacked ad hoc committees and was going to confer
with the Vice-Chair on an appropriate distribution of members.
Planner Raybould agreed and thanked Chair Baltay.
Chair Baltay made a comment to the Board that the April 4th hearing they were going to review the annual
work plan and have it reported back to Council and the Planning Commission; he was creating a draft and
it would be ready for distribution and review in advance to be prepared for feedback and comments.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Eight hundred San Antonio Road [23PLN-00010]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Rezoning from Service Commercial to
Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to allow construction of Seventy-five residential
ownership units, sixteen of which would be below-market rate units (21% of the units). The
proposed building is 5-stories with two levels of subterranean parking. The project also includes
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 23
Page 3 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
a subdivision map to merge two adjacent lots to create a resulting 0.88-acre parcel. Environmental
Assessment: Addendum to the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed
Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation and asked for Board disclosures.
Boardmember Hirsch stated he visited the site.
Vice Chair Rosenberg said she visited the site.
Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site the previous day.
Boardmember Chen commented that she visited the site.
Boardmember Adcock stated she drove by but had not been onto the site.
Project Planner Emily Kallas introduced the PC zoning PHZ project, which had a pre-screening in August of
2022 and followed with a formal application in January of 2023. Staff had been on going, but the initial
PTC hearing was in June 2023, the Architectural Review Board hearing was held in August, and they
returned in March. If ARB made the recommendation on this project, it would move forward to Planning
and Transportation Commission (PTC) for approval, then to City Council. It was located on San Antonio
Road in the housing incentive program area, however, because it was a Planned Home Zone (PHZ) project
the development standards were proposed as a discretionary project and exceeded what was allowed by
Host Information Profile (HIP), which had a higher development standard for the underlying Service
Commercial Zoning district. The building was a seventy-five-unit condominium that had five-stories,
twenty-one percent was affordable to low- and moderate-income residents, and included two levels of
below grade parking with one hundred and forty-eight spaces; there was no parking reduction asked for
this site. The requested exceptions to the development standards that were located in Attachment D, on
the zoning comparison table asked for a 2.99 floor area ratio instead of the 0.4 to 1.0 that was currently
allowed, a sixty percent lot coverage where only fifty percent was allowed, a sixty foot height where fifty
foot was allowed, an approximate 1,000 square foot of retail used where 1,5000 square foot was the
minimum required, a reduced on-site open space requirement for certain units, and that balconies and
patio areas were projected by six inches around the corners of the front setbacks that ran along San
Antonio, which sat at twenty-five feet. As a PHZ project, it had to display a public benefit to balance
development standards; when brought before City Council and was approved, they presented options on
how the affordable housing would be a benefit and gave an example of providing weight with five low-
income units and seven poverty income units. The project included fifty-two two- bedroom units, seven
one-bedroom units, and the rest were three bedrooms. Ms. Kallas presented slides showing the changes
made since the August hearing, with the revised design on the right. They added a retail space that made
it no longer a residential site, opened the Gym and Clubhouse amenity areas to the Courtyard as per
recommendation of the ARB, Bicycle racks had been added to the front of the building, additional detail
to the floor plan layouts were provided, and changed the distribution of open space, notably the private
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 24
Page 4 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
open space in the Courtyard with two units shown on the upper half of the site were relocated to the
corners of the design at ARB’s recommendation. She showed a section view of the second floor, with the
upper floors being stepped back to provide additional light to the Courtyard. An important note she had
made was initially the balconies were only five feet in depth, when the usable open space described in
the development standards was six feet, so that had been adjusted to meet the requirements. Since the
ARB they had added a roof deck to increase the usability of open space and provided the potential for
increased sun lighting in the Courtyard, which was surrounded by four side walls. The proposed materials
for the project included fiber, cement panels, metal panels, metal trim, and glass windows. They had
changed the refining of the front entry to demonstrate that it was a two-story building, with a warm brown
tone color to the ground floor elements, a more solid roof overhang was added to the fifth floor, and the
newly added roof deck amenity space. The ARB had made a comment on cutting off the second-floor
entry element, so now it was an open, two-story clear element with an addition of a retail space with
added additional façade areas that gave a human scale element to the first floor; they had modified the
color to warm tones on the ground floor. She showed an image of a clarified and demarcated private
space on the ground level on the rear façade, as well as site elevations that had the warm brown color
that wrapped around the side of the building. As this site was near 824 San Antonio and 788 San Antonio,
the design had a streetscape that helped show the scale of adjacent structures due to the proposed sixty-
foot instead of the allowed fifty-foot. The sixty foot eight inches was measured from the top of the
parapet, it included additional equipment on the roof, as well as trellis elements in the roof deck that was
a maximum height of sixty-four foot, however the mechanical elements in the underlying code were
allowed to have up to fifteen feet with no daylight plane requirements to accommodate the items. All
units included private open spaces, with balconies and patios that ranged from sixty square feet to over
two hundred square feet: the median being at ninety. When added and averaged out, the units with
smaller balconies fell short of the one hundred and fifty feet per unit open space calculation, but there
were units that had exceeded the limit. The minimum dimension required for the Courtyard was forty feet
in both directions, but they had proposed a fifty-two-foot wide with a length of sixty-two foot; the step
backs to the upper floor were set at seventy-two feet wide and helped allow sunlight to shine on the
Courtyard. A combination of hardscaped and landscaped areas was available to the common open space,
with a green wall vertical garden feature and outdoor furniture both on the Courtyard and on the roof.
There were ten trees proposed for removal, with seven to be planted and the equivalent of twenty-four
trees would be paid as in lieu fees. In the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQU) review, the certified
788 San Antonio Road and housing incentive program extension Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
covered the area for this type of development, but it had exceeded the development standards that were
anticipated on an addendum that declared no new or significant impacts were to occur because of this
project, so the adapted mitigation measures applied under the EIR on this project. The proposed motion
was that Staff recommended the Architectural Review Board’s approval of this project to City Council. She
ended her presentation and introduced the applicant Mark Donahue and his presentation.
Design Director at LY Architecture Mark Donahue thanked the Board for allowing him to come back for
another presentation and had met the recommendations ARB had given in the previous hearing. He gave
a view of the building from San Antonio and showed a warm toned image of the special setback. On the
ground floor there had been an addition to the commercial space and the quiet and active fitness use
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 25
Page 5 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
community spaces were placed to the bottom elevation of the Courtyard. The unit plans were included in
the bound set and had a detailed slide showing each unit. The landscaping had been softened along the
front of the building as had been requested by ARB, and the existent open space on the ground floor had
been moved away from the main activity areas; with images of the landscaping refinement and addressed
the tree issue as they had moved them to the main Courtyard that would allow sun lighting. The roof
deck had been designed as a casual play and recreation space, with the play area at the bottom and the
social on top; they would be reached by a main elevator core. Per ARB recommendation, they increased
all balconies to six feet on each side and were directed to not go over the special setback line, so all
balconies and patios would be behind the twenty-five-foot zone in front of the building. The back
balconies encroached further onto the rear setback, which was allowed under the zoning code. They were
unable to meet the onsite trash pick-up request due to the maneuvering of the trucks within Green
Waste’s requirements, and showed a slide on why it was unable to be done; they proposed having a
service use bulb out on site as other buildings in the area had done. They increased the clearance on a
ramp leading into the basement so panel trucks would be allowed to access the lower level, and other
service elements that did not clear the fourteen-foot clearance height would be used as well. They had
opened the front portal of the building as requested and gave the design more articulation and texture to
the materials used; referred to the striated version on the panel board. The balconies were designed to
be a figure on the ground of elevation, which allowed added depth due to the increase in size.
Chair Baltay called for Public Comment prior to the Boards questions.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Administrative Associate Veronica Dao stated there were no speaker cards submitted.
Chair Baltay closed the meeting to Public Comment and opened the floor to Board member questions.
Boardmember Adcock commented that the planters and renders were well designed, but questioned how
the soil for the ground level trees would be maintained; referred to the courtyard level slide to show the
planter area proposed.
Planner Raybould asked Boardmember Adcock if she had reviewed the previous meeting and video.
Boardmember Adcock answered she had.
Mr. Donahue responded that the parking garage level had three square feet more than was required for
clearance of vehicle traffic, so the trees would be placed inside the garage in raised planters which allowed
sufficient space for the root ball of the trees.
Boardmember Adcock inquired if the bottom South stairs between the unit and commercial space’s exit
passageway were code compliant at the three by seven feet.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 26
Page 6 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Mr. Donahue stated that it was a code complaint of forty-four inches.
Boardmember Adcock questioned if it met code with the push able clearances on the door.
Mr. Donahue responded it was not required on emergency exits, the door only needed a panic bar
installed; it was assumed that the door would be used as an exit only, so the pull requirement was not
applicable.
Boardmember Adcock asked if the perforated metal on the panel board was shown to scale.
Mr. Donahue replied that if it were made to scale it would not fit on the board.
Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a size limit on the board.
Mr. Donahue stated that it was eighteen by fourteen; what the panel showed was an eighth of the scale
of the original patterns.
Boardmember Adcock inquired how big the openings were.
Mr. Donahue answered they were made to be decorative not performative but allowed some privacy.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if a four-inch sphere would fit through the opening; was regarding bird
clearance safety.
Mr. Donahue responded they were not used for guardrails; after he had heard the public comments they
would take into consideration a bird safe design.
Boardmember Adcock commented that from the scale of the drawings on the design patterns they
needed to adjust the sample board to clarify the intended size of the materials.
Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired what the depth of the green vertical wall was.
Mr. Donahue answered that they had not designed a section for it yet, they were typically twelve to
sixteen inches.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned what the timeline for the project was to be maintained.
Mr. Donahue replied it was the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA).
Vice Chair Rosenberg asked Staff if there was a way to ensure the green wall would be maintained, if an
open trellis with no accents would change the aesthetic of the courtyard.
Planner Kallas stated that it was standard for approval that maintenance of landscaping was included and
would have it added to the plans.
Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the below market rate units had a percentage on a single type of unit or
if it were mixed.
Mr. Donahue answered it was required by law to mix the proportions.
Boardmember Chen asked if there were any windows in the bicycle rooms.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 27
Page 7 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Mr. Donahue responded that the public had said they did not want visibility into the rooms, so they had
not added them.
Boardmember Chen inquired about the route in which the retail tenants used to access the trash
receptacles.
Mr. Donahue commented that the Staff would bring the carts to the front door and cross the sidewalk to
the staged trash area.
Chair Baltay questioned how far the water table needed to be dug for the basement.
Mr. Donahue answered that the Geotechnical report set the water table level at eight to twelve feet below
grade, and they were going twenty feet below the water table.
Chair Baltay asked if they had decided to construct a see-cannot wall or a drawdown.
Mr. Donahue replied that the civil engineer said there was not sufficient information to produce a
qualified response; they were going to implement the best practices that worked for the site.
Chair Baltay inquired to Staff if there was a policy or practice within the Town that described how to move
forward on this issue as they had faced the problems on other projects.
Planner Kalas responded that it was typically required see-cannot walls that assisted in the dewatering
that was required.
Chair Baltay asked if it would be resolved at the building permit application stage.
Planner Kallas answered at both the building permit application stage and the Public Works grading permit
that was required for excavation.
Chair Baltay questioned if Staff had received any feedback from the public on the dewatering or depth
below the water table on this project.
Planner Kallas replied they had not received any public comments that asked specifically about the water
table depth.
Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the rainwater retention-detention would be managed in the
Courtyard.
Mr. Donahue stated that they were relying on the perimeter of the Courtyard to control the storm water
management; it would be storm water that was drained into the storm sewer system.
Boardmember Hirsch asked if the perimeter had been calculated to ensure it worked for the site.
Mr. Donahue replied that it had.
Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there was detention to the rooftop of the site.
Mr. Donahue responded that the water source was to be higher than the detention area, and if placed on
the rooftop the water needed to be pumped up to the roof.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 28
Page 8 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Hirsch suggested that the water source could be ancillary to the water collection site if
rainwater were detained to the roof.
Mr. Donahue replied that the civil engineering team had done the ground-based approach due to the
current knowledge of best cost practices; if the planters were placed on the roof, it needed long-term
maintenance which was costly, with them being on the ground level it allowed it to be more maintenance
free.
Boardmember Hirsch clarified that they had explored that as an option and had found it to be unfeasible.
Mr. Donahue answered that was correct.
Chair Baltay addressed Staff on the Environmental Impact Report for 788 San Antonio, and asked if they
had considered the traffic impact from this project and how it was calculated.
Planner Kallas stated that they did not mention they had CEQUA consultants Nichole Yee and Karly
Kaufman from Zoom.
Senior Planner Jodi Gerhardt commented that the Environmental Impact Report done for 788 San Antonio
was combined with the EIR that placed the HIP on the entire corridor of San Antonio, so it was anticipated
a similar project would be constructed along the street.
Chair Baltay inquired if additional parking requirements were included with the seventy-five new units
within the study for the EIR.
Karly Kaufman with Rincon Consultants said the EIR that the project was prepared for the entire housing
implementation program expansion along the corridor; the original EIR examined transportation impacts
associated with the housing developments along the corridor. Under CEQUA traffic congestion was no
longer an impact, so they looked at vehicle miles driven instead. This project was originally aimed at
developing up to ninety-four units instead of seventy-five.
Chair Baltay said that the calculations shown for the open space were slightly below the one hundred and
fifty square foot per unit average, but the applicant mentioned that they had not considered the courtyard
and was over what was required.
Planner Kallas answered that the applicant’s calculations included the front setback space that was not
considered to be usable.
Chair Baltay asked for clarification whether it was or was not meeting the open space requirement per
current codes.
Planner Kallas responded that due to the balconies being varied in size throughout the units it had not
been calculated for every unit.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if they were meeting the overall requirements.
Planner Kallas replied that was correct.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 29
Page 9 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Planner Raybould mentioned that in Staff’s analysis they felt it was under the requirements when
calculated from the front setback area when a part of the programmed open space, but with released
modifications before the Staff report had been done, they needed to recalculate.
Chair Baltay addressed Mr. Donahue and asked if his intention on the project was to meet the open space
requirement, as well as if they would meet the requirements placed on a detailed calculation analysis over
the considerations and requirements recommended by the Board.
Mr. Donahue responded that it was their intention to meet the open space requirements, and they were
willing to follow that; he pointed out that there were differences in the calculated Below Market Rates
(BMR) units, and when the retail area had been added, they took out a BMR which made it fifteen BMR
units and qualified as twenty percent.
Boardmember Chen noticed the upper level only had one trash enclosure located towards the rear of the
units, and if they knew the distance from the units to the trash receptacle that tenants traveled and if a
second enclosure had been considered.
Mr. Donahue answered they had not due to the proposed congestion of the project, and HOA’s had
managed the internal trash maintenance on some projects.
Boardmember Adcock regarded the setbacks in the plan as if they were not at the six-foot depth, and
asked if that was correct.
Mr. Donahue stated the only balconies not six feet were the second balconies for the units, all main
balconies were set at a six-foot depth.
Boardmember Adcock inquired Staff if the underground garage space was allowed in the setback, noting
that in the design on section A4.4, the garage area portion protruded beyond the balcony and overlapped
onto the setback.
Planner Kallas replied that as a PHZ project it was considered a discretionary allowance of the project.
Boardmember Adcock clarified that it was not being asked within this project but could be allowed if
proposed.
Planner Kallas responded that was correct.
Boardmember Adcock said it was difficult to decipher whether the parking extended into the planting and
bio-retention areas, and needed to ensure if that was a discretion the applicant was asking for and if
approved.
Planner Gerhardt clarified that as a PHZ project it had customized zoning, and it was being built as it
progressed. The project normally kept the basement under the building, but it was not required under
the PHZ, and asked ARB to give feedback and comments regarding the issue. Staff wanted to ensure there
was room for perimeter landscaping and needed to know if adequate space for the landscaping was to be
done.
Chair Baltay inquired if there was a bio-treatment swale installed over the garage as well.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 30
Page 10 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Mr. Donahue answered at the current stage of the project, some details had been left out, but it was
acknowledged there was an issue and was solvable; in the case of where the bio swale was placed, it had
potential to encroach on the footprint of the parking garage ramps, and they had checked there was
adequate clearance that allowed the slab to be brought down past a point so the bio swale was not
affected.
Chair Baltay asked if the section showed the garage extended into the rear setback as a normality, or if
that was the intent of the setback in the drawing.
Mr. Donahue replied it reflected the plan dimensions and it was accurate.
Chair Baltay mentioned it was an angled property line which had some stepping placed.
Mr. Donahue stated during the design development and construction document phases they illustrated
the unique conditions, but during design phases the characteristics were picked; at the current stage it
was primarily the vertical relationships of the floor to floor that was the focus.
Chair Baltay said the ARB had been focused on the balcony setbacks for the project and was surprised to
find a setback variation requested that had not been written in the public documentation and was not
sure where to move forward on that discussion; and brought the discussion back to the Board.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that it had been a well-done presentation but found that the design
issues had him concerned. The front area of the building held the pressure of all the waste pickups and
activities that conflicted and needed reconsidered, and inquired if most of the public used the double
elevator at the front. Mr. Donahue responded yes. Boardmember Hirsch suggested either consider
implementing an additional location, or to enlarge the front waste receptacle to accommodate the
number of people; an example was to move to the Northwest corner of the building, or having a lift
outside that took the containers up to street level that allowed for more waste storage. It had been stated
a three-point turnaround was not applicable on site, but if a layby were accepted, it would not conflict
with the entry of the concentrated use of the site.
Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Hirsch for clarification on the reconsideration of the waste location
services.
Boardmember Hirsch replied that the waste collection site was in the basement and had suggested they
moved it below the corner unit on the Northwest side of the building.
Vice Chair Rosenberg indicated to floor plan one and asked if Boardmember Hirsch wanted to move the
area next to the bicycle room.
(Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified in the basement where the battery back-up area was.
Boardmember Hirsch mentioned if that were where the battery back-up had been placed, as it could have
been next to the electrical room; it allowed an area where the landscape was not used.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 31
Page 11 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Chair Baltay commented that if implemented, it was a bulb-out pick-up area that was adjacent to the
parking, which made it no longer next to the front entrance, and questioned if that would affect the multi-
used pick-up area.
Boardmember Hirsch questioned what the possibility of multi-used pick-ups and waste collection storage
would be.
Planner Raybould noted that the waste collection still needed to be brought to the street level even with
the change implemented, and it would no longer be a centralized location but instead at the far end of
the building; the staging area would not be eliminated.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned how the garbage would be collected from the basement to ground level.
Boardmember Hirsch indicated there was a lift proposed.
(Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that the basement was not extended past the setback in the front.
(Crosstalk)
Planner Gerhardt clarified that the waste had shoots that ran down the upper level, then stored in the
basement, and Staff would manually have the bin brought up to the ramp to the staging area; the staging
area was used due to the twenty-five foot from curb requirement, so a lift out of the garage was a good
idea, but the need for a staging area would not be eliminated.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that the issue would be discussed further in the meeting, but it needed
to be analyzed, and gave an example of waste issues that had been dealt with in New York. He suggested
changing the retail area for easier access from the outside of the main entrance.
Chair Baltay mentioned there was merit in what Boardmember Hirsch had brought to attention and asked
him to further explore his suggestions.
Boardmember Hirsch said what was scaled on the front of the building was a nice entry with casual seating
area usage, but it conflicted aesthetically between the immense scale with double height of the front door
and the scale of the interior of the building, and it would have been better to modulate the front with
horizontal elements instead of a vertical to bring down the scale; the aesthetic had not been discussed as
heavily due to many issues that had been resolved. He was also concerned about the access to the units
in the rear, as the public wanted to take the shortest route through an open space; it was mentioned that
the back lobby was not used, and if the waste collection site was moved, it allowed space in the back of
the building for easier elevator accessibility. A proper through passageway needed from the front door to
all units that allowed generous space for public access; some furniture should be considered for relocation
as well. The tree placement in the lobby was a nice idea, as it allowed direct sunlight and responded well
to ARB’s recommendation on added light in the Courtyard. He felt the division between the white areas,
recesses, and balconies had been well done, but the detail of the vertical glass strip was not representative
of the character of the building; even though it gave limited privacy, he was uncomfortable with the detail
of the vertical element aspect and had rather seen a glass installment like the balcony glazing facades.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 32
Page 12 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Adcock questioned if Boardmember Hirsch was referring to the metal panel on the side of
the entry.
Boardmember Hirsch responded that was correct, and reiterated that if the rear elevation, storage, and
distance was looked at the majority of the public would use the elevator in the front of the building; he
commented that the retail store was also in the front with waste collection needed, so if more study had
been applied and they redid the locations of waste storage, it improved the operations of the building
significantly.
Boardmember Chen commented that there had been great improvement since the previous meeting and
noticed the applicants had listened to the ARB’s recommendations. The waste issue needed to be
addressed along the busy street frontage, and although in agreeance with Boardmember Hirsch, she felt
an open glassed enclosure was best; after the retreat with Zero Waste and Green Waste she thought they
had come up with the best solution for the site plan and suggested to add another trash area located on
the front of the building next to the elevator lobby. The sunlight issue and public facilities were improved
in the Courtyard, but she suggested adding high windows to the bicycle room for natural lighting.
Boardmember Adcock stated concerns on the waste issue, as well as the hallway that led to the waste
room being too narrow; the bent corners of the hallways were an issue for tenants if they moved large
furniture to a unit. If the waste room was moved to the front of the building it loosened the constraint
and helped the convenience of the tenants getting from one location to another. She referred to plan 4.4
on the special setback, it showed the basement parking boundary inboard on base, but on plan 4.1 it was
not shown the same; 4.0 was front and back shown with the special setback being in line with the
basement and was concerned about the bio-retention for the rear area due to plan 2.0 had shown the
back area setting on the property line. The first floor of the basement showed the retention area along
the backside of the building and was concerned on how the functionality worked being on top of the
garage.
Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Adcock if her experience was what led her to the concerns on the
engineering and design challenges.
Boardmember Adcock responded that it was more of a structural challenge as they needed to step down
the first-floor slab by three or four feet to maintain the retention area, which was not aligned with the
first-floor wall line.
Chair Baltay questioned whether they proceeded further under those conditions or if they wanted the
applicant to return with the issues being resolved; agreed that it was a complicated issue and they had
not put enough effort into aligning the basement design.
Boardmember Adcock commented that they needed to step up the structure to make it work.
Vice Chair Rosenberg said her appreciation on the design upgrades that had been made, but as leeway
was allowed on the designs for applicants, she was concerned about the lattice pattern that had been
proposed. As a minor issue she suggested adding windows to the bicycle room, and commended the
applicant for the consideration of a move in and out room but the condensed corners as previously
mentioned could cause issues. She did not mind the location of the trash room towards the back, if moved
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 33
Page 13 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
to the front it would cause residents’ complaints on smell in the main lobby; if trash was brought up the
ramp from the basement, it would be problematic due to weight and it impeded traffic in and out of the
building, and agreed with Boardmember Hirsch on it being moved, but to the Northeast corner with a
platform lift by the fire pump area. The consideration the applicant had when looking at the neighbors
on their waste collection was much appreciated and allowed pick-ups in the area to be run smoothly. She
directed a question towards Staff and Board regarding the basement and asked if they were setting an
unintended precedent that allowed this project to moved forward being outside the scope of the building;
wanted more clarity on how it worked, as the secant wall could be up to twenty-four inches thick to the
exterior perimeter to the fourteen- to sixteen-inch-thick walls. The basement level plan A2.0B, the bottom
right portion, would be beyond the property length with the added secant wall, and encouraged them
have the basement design reworked. She was concerned that the basement needed reworked to a
notable extent, and questioned whether it was a condition of approval, or they wanted it to be brought
back before the ARB.
Chair Baltay asked Staff and Board to refer to sheet A0.2 on a design issue with the façade. He showed
concern for the building as it looked like a large box; the façade being 150 foot long with a continuous line
that ran along the top and wanted to see modulation done to the building. The 788 San Antonio building
next door had made changes at ARB request, and it was suggested to consider the same for this project.
His opinion was to have the project approved at this hearing, and they needed to make change
considerations for that to be possible; it was going to be a subcommittee that ended up changing the
circulation design downstairs and would send for approval if conditions were met. The decks upstairs
could not project into setbacks, if acknowledged it was the intention, ARB should ensure that it was met.
Planner Kallas clarified that it was the front special setback and not the side and rear, which projections
were allowed by the underlying zoning.
Chair Baltay stated the consistency of interpretation of the codes were looked at, same for the open space
areas. They needed to have a complete design for the courtyard planters, bio retention swells, and
structure of the secant walls to go before a subcommittee; wanted stronger conditions for approval
regarding the green wall in the courtyard, if a specific line item for how it would be maintained was not
made, it would be a failure. The rear waste collection area had too many bends and was not functional if
emergency crews needed to access the units; can be resolved during the building permit stage.
Planner Raybould inquired if Chair Baltay was referring to the rear area next to the elevator.
Chair Baltay said on sheet A2.1, on the right-hand side of the drawing, the back area had four ninety-
degree bends that should be straightened. The basement projected into the setbacks was allowed under
the PHZ zone approval but had not been notified to the public or community, and asked if anyone had
questioned whether it was a code exception. Directed to Ms. Kallas, he asked if the list of zoning codes
she had mentioned in the presentation were the exceptions allowed.
Planner Kallas replied that was correct, and this code had not been included in the list; gave an example
as in single-family zoning districts basements cannot be projected beyond the footprint of the building,
but commercial and multi-family zones do not have that as a requirement; they were focused on the
special setback and needed to look closer at what was implied.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 34
Page 14 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Adcock questioned if basements were included within the setback or if it was allowed to
go to the property line.
Planner Gerhardt responded there was no clear distinction in the code related to that specifically, so they
used ARB findings that ensured sufficient perimeter landscaping.
Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the twenty-four-inch-thick secant wall had to stay within the property line
as it could not go beyond that.
Planner Raybould answered that was correct.
Boardmember Adcock inquired about the comparison table on special setback, and if clarification could
be made on future projects that it only applied to above grade.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that he did not understand why the special setback was focused on the
front side only and not the side and rears.
Planner Gerhardt responded it was a code implemented in the 1960’s when the city had considered
widening the streets; it was used now for bicycles and pedestrian walk paths.
Boardmember Adcock questioned if it applied to Public Utilities as well.
Planner Gerhardt stated that the special setback did not change how a property would be developed with
utilities.
Boardmember Adcock asked if the intent was for future utility development not to be allowed with the
basement having a special setback; they were constraining the setback on above grade but not the below
grade.
Chair Baltay stated that if the first step to expanding the width of the public right-away they would not
want construction there, and it prohibited from building a road.
Planner Gerhardt noted that this was a PHZ zone which allowed setbacks to be placed anywhere on the
site plan within a certain degree; the commercial setbacks should not be focused on, but Staff was looking
forward to ARB recommendations.
Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned that the experience had with previous issues on setbacks, it had seemed
to be an aesthetic issue more than a utility issue.
Chair Baltay stated in the 1960s that this road had been anticipated to be the San Antonio Expressway
and needed an extra twenty-four foot on either side to allow that to happen and was not planned to be
built soon.
Boardmember Hirsch commented on moving forward with this project and agreed with the Board on the
explorations that had been discussed so far.
Motion
Chair Baltay agreed and called for motion to approve, with the following conditions.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 35
Page 15 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Motion to Approve Conditions
1. No projections into the special setbacks above grade are allowed.
2. The private and common open space areas were to meet current zoning codes.
3. Added conditions that specifically addressed the maintenance on the green wall feature in the
Courtyard.
4. The hallway adjacent to elevator two be revised to provide fewer bends in the hallway and
functional space adjacent to the elevator and waste bin collection area.
5. A recommendation that the elevator use an alternative location for the waste bin collection area,
how it was brought to the street staging area, and location of the street waste staging area.
6. The subcommittee was to return with a schematic foundation design that included considerations
for planters, bioswales, and secant walls.
7. Have a comprehensive plan provided for the Courtyard that includes planters, furnishings, and
pathways through the Courtyard.
8. The bicycle storage area needed clear story windows that provided additional light.
MOTION: Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the conditions.
VOTE: 5-0-0
Chair Baltay assigned Boardmember Adcock and Boardmember Hirsch as the ad hoc committee
members.
The ARB took a 10-minute break and resumed with all members present.
Study Session
3. Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes
Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation.
Boardmember Chen stated that based on the ad hoc committee’s research from the site visit, there were
numbers shown on the slide that needed ARB’s feedback on solutions on questions they had, and whether
it was reasonable in the findings.
Boardmember Hirsch presented the standards wished to be implemented by the ad hoc committee. The
corner units were a main concern more so than the individual units in between and would have a unique
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 36
Page 16 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
aspect at the end of the project. The minimum of a wraparound patio that was a lower element that
penetrated the height limitations of the RM30, but did not exceed fifty foot in height, would be in a higher
respect than the units in between. They projected that there be bay windows on the front and side, or
both. Setback areas needed varied materials and colors from the major portions of the façade materials,
with the balcony being extended a minimum of four feet from the face of the building and was six feet
wide.
Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified if this were to have two or more of the following elevation treatments.
Boardmember Hirsch responded that was correct.
Boardmember Chen added that there would be photo examples shown.
Planner Raybould showed the slides with the projected photos.
Boardmember Chen commented that on slide number two, they had found the circulation was difficult to
manage around as it was more of a community circulation, so it was required that the design of the
townhome project needed to integrate the internal pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle system in the
surrounding area for connectivity; referring to the top view of the site plan, she said specific items such
as the tandem parking, they had considered the best percentage that allowed the parking, and concluded
it would be a maximum of forty percent of the unit would be required. The current code required a
maximum of twenty percent, but the projects that came before the Board were close to fifty percent. A
slide with an Arbor Real with a cul-de-sac arrangement for the parking entrance between the clusters
were permitted and showed on the next slide a top view of the community area with the pedestrian
walkways in between the units.
Boardmember Hirsch mentioned there was a continuous pedestrian walkway in between the cul-de-sacs
for all units with a two-type tandem that met in the Courtyard.
Boardmember Chen said that the guest parking was also an important issue, and understood it was not
required by code to provide guest parking, but functionally they thought it important on-site parking was
provided, and suggested the guest parking either on or off-site would be provided to twenty percent of
the units, and included at least one space for the medium sized delivery trucks or individual vehicles; if
there were convenient street parking on the immediate perimeter streets, all guest parking shall be within
the project site boundary, a minimum of fifty percent of the spaces must be located within the lei-by or
parking stalls on the major street of the project, the remainder of the parking unless allowed to park on
the adjacent street, and would be accommodated in the spaces no longer than 150 feet than the most
remote unit. She addressed the next slide and pointed out the lie-by areas along the lower Fallen Leave
Street, as well as being aligned equally with the side of the street.
Boardmember Hirsch referred to the slide with guest parking spaces and it was a cul-de-sac scheme in
which there were many guest parking spaces against the major street on the outside, and with the
perpendicular parking it solved the issue with parking access on the project. On the next slide it showed
a perimeter of the one-way scheme around the project, and then a slide with three building typologies,
he stated the ad hoc felt that a site of a certain size, and particularly Arbor Real, had the exact multiple
prototypes, and on this project it would have units in one perimeter area be Type A, with A and B being
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 37
Page 17 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
two different types of housing prototypes, and had a center Courtyard on a raised slab in the middle. This
project was big enough to request three different housing typologies.
Boardmember Chen stated that in the recent projects reviewed, they found several of the projects were
smaller in size than what is currently being discussed; and felt a minimum of two should be added.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that this project required the A units had parking below grade under
the center Courtyard that made a difference in the construction of the project but followed the same
scheme of entry and exit of the roadway, similar to the Mountain View circular rotation around the
perimeter, only this project had it run through the site, with the exception of the A units.
Boardmember Chen mentioned they wanted the open space to provide a functional and useful space in
the landscape area, so they recommended all town home projects provided a centrally located common
space, or a linear public pedestrian pathway, equivalent to the minimum of five percent of grass property
perimeter around the town homes; such areas must be exclusively used for pedestrians, and the private
unit entrances or required front yards did not count towards the requirement. The common open space
shall be a functional and useful community gathering place for rest and play, a minimum distance shall be
twenty-five-feet by twenty-five-feet; previous projects had counted the open space as pedestrian
walkways with chairs along the side, but with project they wanted to put a minimum dimension that
allowed a functional space for the residents. The major private street included at least one street tree for
every twenty-five-feet of linear feet.
Boardmember Hirsch noted that currently that was the objective standard in the code for street façade
treatment of trees. The next slide showed the two symmetrical treatments of the trees with the entrance
and exits, and with this being a larger project it was shown with three different prototypes of housing,
street parking, and the open spaces; had exceeded the minimum proposed. The next photo image showed
the Center Courtyard in the proposed plan, and commented on how balanced the open space had been,
as the distance between the units was forty feet from one face of building to the other.
Boardmember Chen showed a wider pedestrian walkway with a carefully planned landscape between the
building, but understood the risk related to the height of the buildings.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that it was unsure how that project had been arranged, whether private
gardens or a mixed garden with both private and public, but it was a pleasant option that allowed light in
and light out and nice colors had been used.
Boardmember Chen had an image of examples of the play, grilling, and activity areas in the open space.
Boardmember Hirsch referred to the Alma Court image that showed the landscaping hiding the
mechanical and electrical street service boxes.
Boardmember Chen mentioned that the accent pavers shown in the pedestrian walkway for safety were
also an option to be considered.
Boardmember Hirsch had a description of the privacy areas adjacent to the front doors of every project,
it needed to be a certain size, and was landscaped in a specific way; images were shown of different
projects currently being worked on and the different options for the outer doorways and landscaping. He
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 38
Page 18 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
showed one of the projects he enjoyed that had a sizable number of units, the way it had been laid out,
the number of units to parking capability, the central open space used, the street façade versus interior
Courtyard façade.
Boardmember Chen stated on this project they wanted to specify what the recommended distance
between the two end units, and based on the site measurements and functions they came to fifteen feet
minimum was the appropriate number.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that was the access between the clusters of units.
Boardmember Chen referred to unit numbers twelve and thirteen to help clarify to Vice Chair Rosenberg.
Boardmember Hirsch gave reference to what had potential to be in the open spaces, but they were to be
landscaped with a five-foot by five-foot by five-foot, a five-foot passage with five-foot of flex space. The
end units were used for the electrical or utility closets related to the cluster of units themselves. The
rhythm and pattern were to be the minimum length of any linear grouping of town house, and they figured
one hundred and fifty feet as the average, entry elements and bay windows were not included and
allowed the end units to be extended.
Boardmember Chen assumed there would be seven units that qualified under the one hundred and fifty
feet required. All units had two car garages with a twenty-foot clearance, wall thickness, and an added
electric room that was on each side, as to the one-hundred-and-fifty-foot number.
Boardmember Hirsch noted that the plan should not have exceeded the one hundred and fifty foot either
as it would start to be too long and made getting from one side to the other more difficult. There were no
more than three attached town houses allowed within a cluster of five, or four in a cluster of six. The units
could repeat the same elevations, so there needed a variation within the elevations; the details of the end
unit had a method of individualizing each of the grouped units.
Boardmember Chen stated that the base building color treatment must include at least two colors and
two basic materials, if the face of the window trim elements and other façade defining trimming were
four inches or larger and was used on more than seventy percent of the windows, than the trim was
considered the second color, otherwise the second color choice was used as the significant element of
the façade, such as a bay window or large formally defined area, and had a minimum of eight-feet by
eight-feet. The exception to the regulation allowed a single color of each unit, if adjacent units were
assorted colors; a maximum of six assorted color options were allowed.
(Images of assorted color schemes on town home projects used were shown)
Boardmember Adcock inquired if the stucco shown in the images were part of the two color and two
material standards.
Boardmember Hirsch responded that it was.
(Continued to show images of color schemes of previous projects - Crosstalk)
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 39
Page 19 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Hirsch had an image that showed the fifteen-foot space between the buildings that allowed
mailboxes and trash enclosures to be evenly distributed between the clusters and should be located no
greater than one-hundred- and fifty feet.
Boardmember Chen noted that the mailboxes were close to the unit buildings.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that the electrical service areas for vehicles were a part of the project
as well.
Boardmember Chen stated that the next slide showed the eight categories with needed refinement on
standards that was proposed, and questioned what the definition of a town home was. The Oak Court
project and the community next to the JCC had a podium type construction with parking spaces
underground and as such would it be considered a town home.
Boardmember Hirsch mentioned it was a different prototype in the respect and had a higher cost to be
built, as to why town homes were constructed on grade most times.
Boardmember Adcock’s thought was the older town homes, such as seen in Washington, D.C. or New York
City, they did not have garages or underground parking, so if a unit did not have one, it would still be
defined as such; it could be a podium construct or street parking only, but a garage did not define whether
it was considered a townhome.
Boardmember Hirsch inquired how a common open space would be added as a requirement; either a
properly fitted paseo or a central courtyard and felt it would be an innovative idea if the units were limited
within the clusters but gave extra units if a common space were allowed.
Boardmember Chen said they would like the feedback from Staff whether if that standard implemented
would be feasible as the State had allowances for these types of projects, and the intent was to limit the
number of concessions requested.
Boardmember Hirsch noted that they were looking to the Board for feedback on what was presented.
Chair Baltay was impressed with the presentation and felt they had done a great job answering the
questions, then proposed to move forward and bring questions and comments back to the Board and
wanted the ad hoc committee to take notes, and had the objective to have a final document produced
similar to what was proposed but with the added feedback included; he wanted to turn over to Staff
unanimous support from the ARB that recommended the director processed the information in a form
that could be brought before Council as an ordinance. He directed the question of what was considered
a townhouse to Boardmember Adcock.
Boardmember Adcock stated that the typology of a townhouse was connected houses, and the parking
and location aspect was related to the parking requirements for the site, which defined amount and where
allowed; any stacked housing with a shared wall was considered a townhome.
Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that any stacked housing of two to three stories with continuous partie
walls, and individual entrances; if the units had their own ingress and egress, and functioned as a singular
unit, which was a key component in categorizing a townhome.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 40
Page 20 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Adcock asked if the units had their own private outdoor space or balcony was that required
to be added in the definition of a townhome as well, or would it be the amount of the private space
required.
Vice Chair Rosenberg referred to the examples shown of the townhomes without private spaces but had
garages; it had been different form what was seen in New York, Washington D.C. as they used patios or
backyards, and felt it should be added to the requirements to help separate whether there was a private
backyard element or just allowed to be a common space.
Boardmember Chen responded that they had questioned what a town home was, as the JCC project had
a backyard due to the parking being below the units.
Boardmember Hirsch mentioned the project had a less than twenty-foot backyard area which limited
what the code allowed on the site and would not be considered a regular Rzone.
Boardmember Adcock clarified that yard was not the correct term, but a private open space, whether
above grade such as a balcony or on grade as a patio. Most projects she had seen it was important to have
a distinction between townhome and condominium or apartment by the addition of a singular enclosed
private space.
Chair Baltay commented that an outdoor space requirement was not a requisite definition of a townhome,
but felt it was good to have added; he made a list of four criteria that defined a building type typology of
a townhome: The units were exclusively residential, they had to be vertically single stacked building type
units with a minimum of two stories, needed at least two exterior walls that faced openly and were not
adjacent to other buildings, and the unit needed to have a private entrance.
(Crosstalk-Planner Raybould pulled up the slide Chair Baltay had asked for)
Chair Baltay referred to Item C on the fifty-foot height limit was fine with the ARB, but the Planning
Department may disagree as they did not want to write a code over the thirty-five-foot residential zone
allowance. On Item F, it was questioned whether they had an objective standard defining balconies.
Planner Raybould responded there was a six-foot circle defined within the standards, but needed to
ensure that was correct.
Chair Baltay stated they wanted to augment existing standards, so if there was one on balconies, they
needed to ensure what was required, and asked if anyone had any changes or comments to Section 1.
Boardmember Chen inquired if Chair Baltay wanted to eliminate the standard or just the dimension of the
standard.
Chair Baltay replied that the current standard on balconies needed verified, and then reference to it,
unless there was no current standard implemented.
Planner Raybould mentioned there could be a balcony that did not meet a private open space, but still
provided a façade modification as there may not have a six-foot area at the end of unit.
Chair Baltay questioned Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen if the intent were the balcony
would be a modulation element on the design rather than the open space.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 41
Page 21 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Chen said that was correct and wanted to have the features added to corner units.
Boardmember Adcock asked if Item A showing the four-foot minimum on covered entry patios was
supposed to be five feet.
Boardmember Hirsch commented that the open space requirements were not defined from a usage point,
it was more of a requirement on setbacks and distance between buildings.
Chair Baltay inquired Planner Raybould on the current objective standard requirement for private and
common open spaces.
Planner Raybould answered it needed to have a six-foot circle.
Planner Gerhardt stated that six feet was the objective standard, to which the size was contained within
the regular zoning code, whether RM30 or otherwise, and differed from each zoning district.
Chair Baltay questioned what objective standard would be applied to balconies in townhouse projects
that were awaiting objective approval.
Planner Raybould noted that in reference to the Multi-family Residential (RM30), the Construction Site
(CS) and other zone districts such as Research, Office, and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM), where town
home style designs were allowed, there was no standard on private versus common, it was just limited to
150 square feet per unit; some designs such as the Summerhill project had designed the open space as a
common area with less private space, which was allowed in the code with ARB approval.
Planner Gerhardt replied that 150 feet was the standard for most districts, and in multi-family districts
there was minimum of fifty square feet for private, and 150 for common.
Chair Baltay clarified that the requirement currently being looked at regarded the end units as a
decorative piece; he suggested they note Item A with a comment saying it was in addition to already
placed open space requirements that applied.
Boardmember Adcock asked if there was a minimum entry patio depth on town homes.
Planner Gerhardt responded that in the standards there were a few different versions of entry ways that
could be used.
Planner Raybould commented that it depended on the type of entrance was used, they had different
requirements for each option.
Chair Baltay asked Staff if they had reviewed the current objective standard on entry ways for townhomes;
and if this applied to only the corner units, or the patios as well.
Boardmember Hirsch stated they had not, and the thought had been to apply the standard to each unit.
Chair Baltay indicated that it may not be applicable to corner units.
Boardmember Hirsch referred to a Menlo Park project that had shingled white trimmed entry patios.
Chair Baltay mentioned that if all entry patios had to be five feet, then Point A would have been reached
regardless of being a corner unit.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 42
Page 22 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Planner Gerhardt referred to the objective standards that defined stoops as being used for a maximum of
two units, and the entry landing was a minimum of five foot in depth.
Chair Baltay said they needed to add a standard regarding townhome entries separate from the stoop.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay stated that the standard on stoops was for the intent of row style town homes.
Boardmember Hirsch noted that in some projects with entry stoops, there were air conditioning units
with the area that allowed only four feet in dimensions.
Vice Chair Rosenberg inclined that the five foot was consistent with the objective standard and should
stay as such, but on corner units, it could be set to four feet as there was a different condition for it had
the capacity to wrap around the corner of the building that allowed extra leeway.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Chen if it were feasible to add definition to the wrapping around a
building.
Boardmember Adcock clarified that it was a four-foot-deep minimum on wrap around entry ways, patios,
or balconies that needed to be defined within the standard.
Chair Baltay moved to the second Item in question.
Boardmember Adcock stated that the question asked was too vague and needed to be clarified.
Boardmember Hirsch referred to the discussion on Bayshore the committee had had and had connected
the importance of bicycle paths and changes in the area and wished to have it brought to attention.
Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested rewording the standard as every pedestrian, vehicular, and circulation
needed to connect to each single unit.
Chair Baltay commented that the paths needed to connect to the outside the townhouse development as
well, that gave access to the roads.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock inquired if they were wanting a private or public bicycle path, as the development
was not able to enforce a public pathway through the townhouse project site, but if a private path were
created it would be equitable.
Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed, and asked if they were requiring a townhouse development had to have a
bicycle path through the site, or if it was considered separate from the pedestrian path and felt there
needed to be more clarity on what was being asked.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay said the Bayshore project ARB had requested was integrated into the park, and they had
succeeded in conjoining a connection.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 43
Page 23 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Planner Raybould commented that on the Bayshore project, there had been many discussions around the
connection issues regarding how many pathways to be connected and how much privacy was allowed
before being brought to the ARB for review, and the community services division could not determine
how much connectivity should be allowed or the potential for issues in the project further into
construction. She noted that what was envisioned during the presentation were bicycle paths that would
be connected to smaller townhome garages, which made the cul-de-sac a low vehicular activity area, and
having an added bicycle path to the project was not ideal.
Boardmember Hirsch mentioned they focused on the aspect if the project was near an outer access area
i.e. a park, it would be connected to the public area for easier access.
Chair Baltay responded that it was hard to enforce as an objective standard but could be considered a
comment made to the designers; the next issue was tandem parking, and asked if the forty percent was
too low.
Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she approved forty percent.
Boardmember Adcock questioned if twenty percent was allowed, and if applicants were able to ask for
waivers to reach the needed measurement, and what the difference was from being raised from twenty
percent to forty percent.
Chair Baltay asked if the waivers were on low-income housing as well.
Planner Raybould replied no that it was only if applying for a state density bonus project; if a state density
bonus was not being applied for, a waiver was not needed as the code had been met or it was a PHZ
project.
Boardmember Adcock said the forty percent limitation helped projects that were not applying for the
state density bonus, but any more than forty percent was unnecessary.
Vice Chair Rosenberg and Chair Baltay agreed on forty percent.
Chair Baltay moved to the third Item in question.
Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired Staff if everyone agreed on the cul-de-sac arrangement proposed, and if it
was not currently allowed, but they were wanting to make it allowable.
Boardmember Chen stated that there was no code language on whether the cul-de-sac was allowed or
not.
Planner Raybould commented there were no standards prohibiting a cul-de-sac design, and questioned if
the end units were what the concern was.
Boardmember Adcock asked how the end units compared to the maximum seven units in a row, as it was
a continual loop.
Vice Chair Rosenberg said it was a difference between where the structure and paving had been broken
up into.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 44
Page 24 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Adcock mentioned that the plan view of the project looked to be more than seven units
when it was wrapped around.
Chair Baltay stated that depending on the massing of the unit, whether it was seven in a line or a U-shape,
but felt a cul-de-sac was necessary in this project.
Planner Raybould noted there were no standards on cul-de-sacs being prohibited.
Chair Baltay made the decision to have the issue removed and moved on to the fourth Item.
(Crosstalk off microphone)
Boardmember Adcock referred to the image on the slide of the townhomes with garages on the end units,
and inquired if the cul-de-sac for the garage or unit was in question, and she had not seen this design
choice previously as it blocked the area in terms of daylight and openness to the unit.
Chair Baltay moved to the guest parking issue that needed resolved.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned whether there needed to be a guest parking space, as she felt twenty
percent was too high, and that residents would use it as a daily parking spot.
Chair Baltay inquired if twenty percent of the total number of parking spaces required was being
requested.
Boardmember Adcock clarified that it was twenty percent of total number of units.
Planner Raybould noted that the previous code requirement was ten percent and Council had removed it
to reduce requirements on housing to provide more affordable housing opportunities; many State laws
had pushed to reduce restrictive parking requirements on housing developments, and Staff was
uninclined to add more requirements related to the quest parking as it would go back on what had been
removed by Council.
Planner Gerhardt added that they would not want to implement more requirements on parking but could
add details to be the parking was permitted, as some were in garages, others could be added to the open
surface lots.
Chair Baltay expressed his disagreement with Council’s decision on parking allowances, and wanted to
have the chance to give a recommendation on the twenty percent restriction as many projects were not
given enough parking spaces for accommodation of guests.
Vice Chair Rosenberg countered that many State laws required new housing developments, and if a
developer were required to use twenty percent of the site for surface parking, it took up a significant
amount of the footprint of the land parcel available to utilize, and that could hinder building the units
needed for the project. She questioned whether it was feasible to set the limit at twenty percent, as she
felt that was high, or if they stayed at the ten percent per code, but agreed with Chair Baltay on going
back to Council to ask why and what they needed to push for parking requirements.
Boardmember Adcock asked if they were to ask in lieu of the required per unit parking.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 45
Page 25 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Chair Baltay stated that with previous projects, he experienced there was too limited parking and wanted
to bring the issues to Council for recommendation on not reducing designated parking, and strongly
agreed to have the twenty percent left as a recommendation for the project.
Planner Raybould asked if twenty percent was extra designated or undesignated parking spaces.
Chair Baltay responded undesignated or common parking spaces.
Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned it may encourage developers to have a podium style design used that
allowed more parking without the townhome footprint being impacted.
Boardmember Chen noted that there potentially were height restrictions applied to the building as it had
been stacked upward.
Chair Baltay referred to the second paragraph regarding street parking and asked if it was available on
this site, and was it accepted in the zoning codes that public parking counted towards the parking
requirements.
Planner Raybould answered it was not counted towards any parking for the site if it happened to be public
parking.
Chair Baltay inquired how many townhomes benefitted from adjacent street parking.
Boardmember Hirsch replied that a considerable number benefited, such as Alma Court and Arbor Real,
and the issue had been brought to the attention of the ad hoc committee by reviewing the examples
shown in the presentation.
Planner Raybould said it was difficult to manage as conditions changed as bicycle or pedestrian pathways
get added or removed which affected the parking spaces allowed.
Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and thought the second paragraph should be removed.
Chair Baltay asked if the second sentence regarding fifty percent of the parking spaces needed to be on
the major streets and the last sentence that stated every guest space was to be within 150 feet of the
unit.
All members agreed to keep the two sentences.
Chair Baltay moved to discuss the building typology.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned what was done on a zero to half acre and two to three acre site regarding
the requirement on one half acre and two acres, but above three acres that was required; she noted the
800 San Antonio was a 0.088 acre lot and if it were to have townhomes constructed, where would it be
classified in the typology, and if it was a zero to one and a half acre would only two units be required to
be constructed on the site and wanted clarity on the issue.
Boardmember Adcock added that there should be clarity on the definition of prototype, and asked if it
was not about the plan layout, but more so the façade treatment.
Chair Baltay stated that it was written as a significant variation of internal planning.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 46
Page 26 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Boardmember Adcock said there could be two to three different plan unit types, and the façade treatment
and building massing would be included in the section regarding the two dissimilar materials used.
Chair Baltay mentioned the internal planning could not be regulated and it had to be on the form and
appearance of the building from the outside due to the factors that were included in design.
Boardmember Adcock agreed and said on small townhome projects it would not be an issue if they found
buyers interested in the idea.
Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the goal for the regulation was more for larger townhome
developments to have a variety of options as to not have repetitive colors, materials, and parking used.
Boardmember Adcock felt that it was not an ARB decision on whether the developers wanted to have
similar schemes on the townhome units.
Boardmember Hirsch referred to the Arbor Real project and wanted Staff to look at the three prototypes
in the larger developments, in smaller projects it did not make sense to have vast options.
Chair Baltay inquired how many acres the Arbor Real project was, and if they were to consider the number
of acres or units they looked at.
Planner Raybould brought up the 2755 El Camino project on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino was a
half-acre site and tried to think of two types of typologies on the small scale of a parcel.
Vice Chair Rosenberg thought of the ten-townhome project in Town and Country Villages parking lot, and
questioned if two different units would be required, were the two end units counted as separate
typologies because they looked different from each other, and felt the goal of the comment was
important, as on smaller townhome unit projects having the freedom of options worked fine, but on larger
scaled projects having all the same designs, it became an issue.
Chair Baltay questioned if it should start at an acre.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock stated it should start at one and a half or two as the layout between the sites
created different typologies with out it being forced; asked if by requesting variety was it to be on the
bedroom sizes, or what was included within the prototype.
Chair Baltay brought up two recent town home project sites on Bayshore and the Fry’s site, and both had
a single prototype design that ARB had suggested being changed that was not moved forward as it was
too far into the approval process, but if a regulation had been enforced it would have made a difference.
He suggested it being defined by building form, exterior elevation treatment, and material variation;
should be set above one acre, two above two acres, with three prototypes.
Planner Raybould commented that it was placed in the code.
Planner Gerhardt noted that she had it placed within the objective standards as it was a long-standing
question with the ARB; the code 1824.50 talked about the types of housing diversity, and if under one
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 47
Page 27 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
acre it was allowed one housing type, if one to two acres it had to be two housing types, and if over two
acres it had to have three housing types.
Chair Baltay asked if there was a definition of housing types.
Planner Gerhardt said the definition of housing types were detached units versus attached townhouses
or rowhouses, condominiums, apartments, and mixed-use units.
Chair Baltay stated that the ARB was concerned about townhomes variance and design as they had all
looked more or less the same and asked if the code section3 1840.50 could be amended and add that
typologies must include a significant variation of building massing, unit sizes, height massing, and the
number of units per structure.
{Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock mentioned the next Item with regards to all townhomes must provide centrally
located twenty-five by twenty-five-foot common green space or a linear public pedestrian path and
questioned if they wanted to add a minimum width if a linear path.
Boardmember Hirsch replied that was correct.
Chair Baltay suggested a twenty-five-foot width as the requirement.
Boardmember Hirsch added that private areas were not to be included as they were open spaces.
Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and said it was important as with the porch or patio areas being in the open
space, the public could easily access the private area.
(Crosstalk)
Planner Gerhardt noted that in the objective standards on common open spaces needed to have a ten-
foot circle diameter.
Chair Baltay responded that for the townhomes they requested up to a twenty-five-foot circle diameter.
Planner Raybould asked for clarification if the first paragraph said areas that were considered pedestrian
pathways could not be used as a common open space as the examples that had been provided showed as
such.
Boardmember Hirsch stated the ad hoc committee had chosen the dimensions from the first illustration
that had been shown, as the common path was part of the central open space utilized by the public.
(Crosstalk: discussed the example image on what was considered common open space and what was
questionable)
Planner Raybould stated she was still unsure of what was being asked.
Chair Baltay responded they were asking for five percent of the site area be used for common open space
and private area spaces for the townhomes were not included with a twenty-five-foot circle minimum
within the space; the private common open space was to be functional and usable as a community
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 48
Page 28 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
gathering area for rest and play. He asked if the street tree requirements within the third paragraph were
included in the objective standards.
Planner Gerhardt answered there were street trees every thirty feet.
(Crosstalk)
Planner Raybould mentioned that most townhome project sites had a tree placed between each unit.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock inquired if the main street led into the development cul-de-sac driveways, would
it be considered a private street that made the tree requirement be applied.
Planner Raybould commented that they had considered the number of units with private driveways
serving under the code as what was defined as a private street, she believed it was four or more units.
Boardmember Adcock said that Lake Avenue had trees, but Tahoe Lane only had trees on one side of the
street, and asked if that situation met the requirement.
Planner Raybould replied that the requirement had not been met unless trees were added between the
finger type areas shown on the image.
Chair Baltay asked what the current objective standard was on private streets in housing developments
regarding trees.
Planner Raybould answered they had not defined between private and public streets, and when looking
at the townhomes they considered a requirement for all streets, but most projects she had seen provided
trees in between the garages for the homes.
Chair Baltay asked for clarification if all streets were applied to the thirty-foot requirement.
Planner Raybould responded that all public and private streets were included in the objective standard.
(Crosstalk regarding the image that showed the location of trees along the street and whether it was to
be twenty-five-feet or thirty-feet)
Planner Gerhardt read the objective standard saying sidewalks shall include at least one street tree
withing six feet of the sidewalk for every thirty feet of linear feet of sidewalk length.
Boardmember Hirsch brought to attention the issue they had found on projects with parking on both sides
of the street, which was usually considered to be private, had no shade or canopies provided by only
having one tree along the street.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock commented to get enough space for a three-foot planting area, which added six
feet to the drive aisle requirement, and would cause a substantial impact on the project.
Boardmember Hirsch said it worked best with larger projects where a central street was affordable and
was constructed like main street with a median placed.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 49
Page 29 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Chair Baltay questioned whether the objective standard could be adjusted to clarify that townhome
private roads were considered the same as the length of the sidewalks, and that street trees needed to
be on one side of the private drive that allowed reduced dimensions of thirty to twenty-five feet.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay changed the phrasing of the current code saying sidewalks to also include private streets
without sidewalks within townhome developments.
Planner Gerhardt indicated the code needed to be amended to address the issue.
Chair Baltay asked if Staff and Board were okay with not adding a new standard, but have the current
code clarified.
Boardmember Hirsch showed concern about it not being feasible.
Chair Baltay inquired about the current objective standard regarding accent paving.
Planner Gerhardt answered there were current access accent paving used in the crosswalks in the
downtown area and along California Avenue, which is where they could be used on the project site and
questioned whether ARB wanted special pavements for all the sidewalks on the site as well.
Vice Chair Rosenberg stated it was well placed at intersections of pedestrian and vehicular traffic areas.
Chair Baltay requested to move to the next Item as it did not pertain to strictly townhomes, but it could
be suggested to Staff to implement tighter regulations on accent paving within the objective standard.
Boardmember Hirsch expressed concern on the tighter community areas being negatively affected by the
lack of proper accent paving markings.
Boardmember Adcock questioned if they worded the requirement as pedestrian walkways were to be
made with a different paving material versus vehicular.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock asked Staff if there was an objective standard placed regarding the paving for
crosswalks.
Planner Gerhardt responded there was not for crosswalks or walkways, the only one Staff had was for
downtown and California Avenue.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay suggested leaving it as pedestrian pathways shall be paved with a different material than the
vehicular pathways and moved on to the Item about privacy.
All Board members agreed with what was proposed within the Item on privacy.
Boardmember Chen inquired if the previous slide shown needed to be addressed regarding the fifteen-
foot distance between end units.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 50
Page 30 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay inquired when a U-shaped or L-shaped unit was constructed, how was the length measured
and if there was a recommendation on how it was calculated.
Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that the maximum number of attached units of a common wall should not
exceed seven units, no matter what the unit was shaped as.
Chair Baltay referred to a prototype of a long U-shaped building with five units on each side and one on
the end not being allowed, and if Staff and Board were okay with it not being allowed.
Vice Chair Rosenberg gave an example of two or three units on either side with a large unit along the back,
with a fifteen-foot break that led to another long linear building of units that allowed a cul-de-sac to run
down the middle of the street, and felt it was effective on a townhome site.
All Board members agreed.
Chair Baltay moved to materiality, and questioned how materials, textures, and colors were to be defined.
Boardmember Adcock referred to the standard on which the base building color treatment had to include
at least two-color schemes and two basic materials to be used, and felt it should be left as it was, as stucco
had assorted colors and textures when applied.
Vice Chair Rosenberg commented on shingle siding and her concerns on whether it applied to the variety
standard.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay inquired if the last line of the paragraph referred to there being six colors or materials to
choose from or would it all be one singular plain color.
(Crosstalk)
Planner Gerhardt asked if it was for six colors per building or per project; if it was per project, it limited
the difference in between the buildings.
Chair Baltay responded it was per building.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay moved to the Item on waste operations and asked the ad hoc committee if the 150-foot
dimension was reasonable to request.
Boardmember Adcock inquired if the example showed the waste area being within 150 feet of the furthest
unit.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock commented that 150 feet limited the waste area but worked if applied to the
mailboxes.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 51
Page 31 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Chair Baltay questioned what an appropriate distance for the waste site was.
(Crosstalk)
All Board members agreed to a 250-foot distance from the unit to waste enclosure be applied.
Boardmember Chen mentioned the service vehicle parking and if they wanted to separate it into another
category as the size was different compared to the regular guest parking.
Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that there should be at least one regulated parking spot for service vehicles.
Planner Gerhardt said there were standards placed on loading spaces for larger service vehicles; a taxi
loading area had been added for projects over fifty units, and asked if there was more the ARB wanted to
add.
Chair Baltay referred to the paragraph that allowed guest parking to include one space for a medium sized
vehicle, and it was suggested that an additional space needed to be added on to the parking.
(Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed with the issue regarding the service vehicle parking was an operational issue
and not a guest parking issue.
Chair Baltay asked for the current objective standard on roof decks on all building types.
Planner Gerhardt replied that roof decks down one level from the top had to be within the height limit of
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as it was required to have a stairway and elevator to reach the top, and once
implemented it led to an increase in height, if under the FAR and height limit there was no restriction.
Planner Raybould noted that under the new code changes were made so the stairway was allowed to
exceed the height limit, even with the height limit being counted as well.
Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if there was a fifty-foot height limit and if it were opted to have a one-,
two-, or three-story house plus a roof deck and stairwell, within the FAR, would it be legal.
Planner Gerhardt answered if it met the height limit it would be legal.
Chair Baltay inquired if there was a privacy requirement in the objective standard for outdoor spaces
above grade.
Planner Gerhardt said if it was counted as an open space then yes it had standards placed in the code; if
an open space under the height limit it was allowed.
Vice Chair Rosenberg asked fellow Boardmembers if they wanted to encourage this type of design, and if
so, how would they have it implemented; she felt it benefited the units and was a successful design as
each rooftop terrace gave privacy to the individual unit but did not want to have the rooftop terraces near
one another.
Chair Baltay commented that the public had expressed issues with the lack of privacy of roof decks
between neighbors not living in the buildings, but felt it was a bigger issue than ARB had say on. The last
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 52
Page 32 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
thought was on a point-based system to demonstrate compliance instead of a series of standards that
needed to be met and was concerned it would be more work added to Staff.
Boardmember Adcock agreed that it would be an administrative hassle to have a point system figured out
and established.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Hirsch stated that the intention was to have a more public common space included, and
asked how it was to be enforced, such as a mandate.
Chair Baltay replied it had to be a tradeoff such as more tandem parking if more open space was allowed
but did not see how it was going to be implemented in a practical way.
Boardmember Adcock noted that only a small percentage of projects would have the accounting applied
as developers were able to utilize waivers.
Boardmember Hirsch said that it should be mandated by size of the project as developers took advantage
of waivers.
Chair Baltay said the ARB recommended to the Planning Department they consider adopting a point-based
approval system for objective standards.
(Crosstalk)
Boardmember Adcock asked for an example of how the point-based approval system would be
implemented.
Chair Baltay answered that every time a standard was complied with, they received a point, and they
needed to reach ten points all together to have met the standards.
Planner Gerhardt mentioned Staff had a unique way of what was to be complied with, and in some cases,
there was a menu of options that allowed variation, and if a point system were created, it forced Staff to
start over in the expected compliances.
(Crosstalk)
Vice Chair Rosenberg expressed her concern on creating a point system and agreed it was difficult to
define a starting point and how it moved forward.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay requested that the ad hoc committee members on this project made a final document draft
from the notes and feedback, and returned it to Planner Raybould, and then have a final Board
recommendation on what was to be done on town home standards and asked if all Boardmembers agreed
to proceed as such.
Boardmember Chen asked if the final document was to be text only or have photos and images included
as well.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 53
Page 33 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
Chair Baltay said Staff would be able to suggest what was to be included within the document as the ARB
wanted to ensure there was a format on what was asked and recommended, which then gave Staff the
ability to further prosecute the standards.
Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if the final document could be agendized within the packet for the following
meeting that allowed time for the Board to review and approve the items as written.
Planner Raybould answered it had to be if there was to be a vote on approval.
(Crosstalk)
Chair Baltay wanted the subcommittee to collaborate with Staff to determine the proper formal format
of the final report, and have it placed on the agenda to be voted on approval or denial of the document,
and recommended to the Planning Staff on how they were to move forward.
Planner Raybould noted that there would be video and minutes that would help to prepare the final
document.
Chair Baltay thanked Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen for their work on this project and
closed the Study Session.
Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Baltay asked for Boardmember Hirsch’s comments on a non-agendized item within a ten-minute
time limit.
Boardmember Hirsch showed an illustration of photographs of what was to be discussed. The existing
houses in the community and the drawings of the projects provided gave a lesson on to carefully reviewing
the standards. The 12306 technical manual was a prime example of a detailed description of what the
standards implemented. Too many specific rules appeared as personal preferences rather than recognized
general principles, and therefore were not completely objective. The third comment was on the
residential functional planning massing design and site planning was to be understood in the relation to
all multiple residences on each specific site when lots were split, and the SB9 had not dealt with the issues
such as privacy, vehicle access, and private open spaces, which made it difficult on lot splits. His final
comment was that the changes to longstanding regulations should be avoided as they had been
established and assessed, after research on multiple housing types and a drawn description had been
done from the technical manual. On the handout Staff was given, page 4.4A was known as the AP
[TIMESTAMP 4:45:37 Unintelligible] three in the new description, except for the Eichler’s Palo Alto
neighborhoods had diversity of styles, and frequently had porches that was not a standard for all projects,
and if a majority of unique features on a single block, as consistent elements by themselves, it should not
dictate the entire street; it was atypical of the Palo Alto community and was an excessive restriction placed
on an owner or developer. He felt the driveway materials were too restrictive, used a photo of his home
as an example, which had concrete that was disallowed; the example in the middle of the page depicted
a brick bordered and concrete, which he wanted to see allowed. Garage locations had standards that the
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 54
Page 34 of 34
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 03/07/24
garage had to be setback from the from the house and showed an example of a garage setting flush with
the home that he felt looked appropriate and disagreed with the current standard. The roof heights and
pitches standards were an important issue, as he thought they should maintain a normal daylight plane,
and nothing else should be applied; to have angled roofs different at the angles, was not seen as
reasonable, and when garage doors were to be represented the same as front doors of homes, showed a
middle picture as an example that had a wood garage door, as it was a part of the form of the building
and not the front door. He stated that the façade focal point was an unnecessary description, and with
the examples given in illustration, the composition of the front of a building was what described the
building. The window to wall detailing was more complicated than the description as it was limited and
restricted to many dimensions of the windows; it had insufficient descriptions. The single-story building
forms were the closest the government could require, 2.5A or B2, to build according to a pre-ordained
housing plan, and eliminated the basic freedom inherent in Palo Alto’s varied building styles. On B6, 5.4A,
he suggested increasing the dimensions from the side yards of a balcony to twenty foot, to eliminate the
need of solid balcony railings; the daylight plane clearances should be kept as they were as it helped the
over all composition to the houses. The walkway separations on narrow sites or planning purposes only
had an entry located on a driveway site that was separated by stones between concretes bads and led
linear to the front door but had no room for planting areas to be added and felt it should be applied to all
situations or eliminated as a standard. He wanted to keep the daylight plane and old studies done because
it represented the unique styles and appropriation to Palo Alto and mentioned the limited number of
roofing styles available.
Chair Baltay thanked Boardmember Hirsch for his comments and was impressed to see the strong
concerns about the issues.
Adjournment
Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 1:12 p.m.
Item 2
Attachment C: Summary
Minutes March 7 2024
Packet Pg. 55
Townhome Study
12/2022
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 56
I. OVERVIEW
II. CASE STUDY
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 57
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 58
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 59
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 60
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 61
1. Neighborhood Context
- Historic District / Building
- Major Street or Boulvard
- Low Density Residential Zone
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 62
Celsius 44 at Riverfront Warehouse District, Petaluma, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 63
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 64
JCC- Altaire Walk with Shared Parking, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 65
Landsby, Mountainview, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 66
Townhomes located on major streets or boulevards or facing two
streets can exceed the RM-30 height requirements by one story but
can not exceed the 50 foot height limitation. Emphasis on increas-
ing the the importance of the street is achieved by selecting two or
more of the following:
a. Increase the scale of the entry area and doorway.
b. Increase the window dimensions and their surrounds and the
cornice dimension.
c. Provide the front areaway within the property with a defined
structure that separates it from the sidewalk and the neighboring
home.
d. Increase the height of the building by a full story or a partial
story consistently on all units or at end units or in a consistent
repeating pattern of units.
e. provide projecting bay window
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 67
Corner units that face two streets must have a change in the roof
line to a higher elevation unless the entire units parapet or roof line
is taller than the adjacent unit and must have two or more of the
following elevation treatments so that it is distinguished from the re-
petitive units.
a. minimum 4’ deep covered entry patio.
b. A wrap around corner window or 2.5’ projecting bay window on
one or more floors.
c. A tower element that may penetrates the height limitation of the
RM-30 but does not exceed 50 feet in height.
d. A projecting bay window on the front or side elevation or both.
e. A setback area of differing material and/or color from the major
facade material.
f. A balcony extending a minimum of 4’ from the face of the build
ing and is 6’ wide.
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 68
Prominent site areas at the major visual corners of the project must
be emphasized with structures that, like the cluster corner units, are
distinct and identifiable than their neighboring Townhomes, which
can be achieved by utilizing at least 3 of the modulations noted in
a-e of # 1 above.
I. OVERVIEW- Neighborhood Context
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 69
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 70
2. Community Circulation
- Vehicle Access / Parking
- Pedestrian / Bicycle Paths
- Guest Parking
I. OVERVIEW - Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 71
Oak Court with Shared Parking, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 72
Arbor Real with Cul-de-sac Layout, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 73
Arbor Real with Cul-de-sac Layout, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 74
Tranquility Community with Cul-de-sac Layout, Livermore, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 75
Montecito- Loop Lane, Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 76
Arbor Real Pedestrian Walkway, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 77
The Redwoods at Montecito Pedestrian Walkway, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 78
JCC- Altaire Walk with Shared Parking, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 79
Perch- Guest Parking 1 per 2 units, Dublin, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 80
Arbor Real- Lay-by Parking, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 81
The design of the Townhome project must integrate its internal pe-
destrian, bike and vehicular system with the surrounding areas in
order to maintain the connectivity and continuity.
Tandem parking is permitted for a maximum of 30% of the units, but
must be equally distributed between the clusters.
A Cul-de-Sac arrangement of parking entries between clusters is
permitted. Vehicles in such a parking scheme cannot cross a pe-
destrian path that provides access to the unit entries on the oppo-
site side or connects to another series of units with garages across
an intervening pedestrian path.
I. OVERVIEW- Community Circulation
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 82
Guest parking either on or off site shall provide for 20% of the total
number of units.and must include at least two spaces for delivery
vehicles and a minimum of one space for a service repair vehicle.
the size of a medium sized truck.
Unless there is convenient street parking on the immediate pe-
rimeter streets, all guest parking shall be within the project site
boundaries. A minimum of 50% of these spaces must be located
within a lay-by or parking stall on the major streets of the project.
The remainder of the parking, unless allowed to park on the adja-
cent streets, shall be accommodated in parking spaces no greater
than150 feet from the most remote unit.
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 83
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 84
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 85
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 86
Sterling Park, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 87
Sterling Park, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 88
Site Plan Prototype
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 89
The Redwoods at Montecito, Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 90
The Redwoods at Montecito, Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 91
While 3 different prototypes are preferred, a minimum of two sepa-
rate prototypes of townhome design are required between one half
acres and two acres. Above three acres, three prototypes are re-
quired. The difference between typologies must include a significant
variation of internal planning and exterior elevation treatments. End
unit variations are not a separate prototypes.
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 92
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landscape/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 93
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 94
Alma Village, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 95
The Redwoods at Montecito, Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 96
Montecito by Summerhills, Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Building Typology
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 97
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 98
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 99
JCC Altaire Walk- Common Openspace, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 100
All Townhomes projects on all sites greater than 200x400 feet must
have one street of the longest dimension with a sidewalk and street
trees. (see xxx for tree frequency)
Pedestrian paths on the side of housing clusters that connect the front
to the rear and located between the townhome clusters where the unit
entry is on the opposite side must be a minimum of 12 feet wide with a
minimum 4 foot sidewalk and the adjacent areas fully landscaped. Bay
windows of 2.5 foot projections may penetrate this area as long as no
windows directly face each other across its width.
All major, general public pedestrian passages between clusters must
be a minimum of 16 feet wide. A minimum 4 feet perimeter of planting
areas and pedestrian amenities such as seating areas must be incor-
porated in the design and are required throughout the pedestrian way.
Such amenities can include bicycle racks or other mobility devices.
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 101
All Townhome projects 40 units or greater must provide centrally lo-
cated common green spaces or linear public pedestrian paths such as
Paseos equivalent to a minimum of 5% of the gross property area of
the Townhomes. Such areas must be exclusively for pedestrian use.
Private unit entries or required front yards do not count towards the re-
quirement.
I. OVERVIEW - Landsacpe/ Openspace
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 102
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 103
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 104
Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 105
Tranquility Community, Livermore, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 106
JCC- Altaire Walk, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 107
Arbor Real-Stoops, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 108
Arbor Real-Stoops, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 109
Arbor Real-Stoops, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 110
E Meadow- Stoops, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 111
The exterior areas adjacent to first floor and separate from the re-
quired unit’s walkway and entry path and entry door must be land-
scaped with shrubbery that separates it from the public sidewalk or be
defined by a private entry court with fencing or walls no greater than
3’-6” between units or the public right-of-way.
I. OVERVIEW - Privacy
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 112
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 113
Perch, Dublin, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 114
Menlo Park, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 115
Laguna Vista, Foster City, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 116
Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 117
Menlo Park, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 118
Tranquility Community, Livermore, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 119
The maximum length of any linear grouping of Townhomes is 150 feet
not including entry elements or bay windows, Each unit must include a
minimum front yard 5 feet deep by the width of the unit. The exterior
areas adjacent to first floor and separate from the required unit’s walk-
way and entry path and entry door must be landscaped with shrubbery
that separates it from the public sidewalk or be defined by a private
entry court with the solid portion no greater than 3’-6” between its side
unit or the public right-of-way.
No more than 3 attached Townhomes within a cluster of 5 units or 4
in a cluster of 6 units can repeat the same elevation, window format,
surface pattern and cornice height. The maximum number of attached
units with common walls shall not exceed 7 units.
I. OVERVIEW - Rhythm and Pattern
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 120
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW - Materiality
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 121
Menlo Park, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Materiality
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 122
Alma Village, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Materiality
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 123
Tranquility Community, Livermore, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Materiality
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 124
The Redwoods at Montecito, Mountain View, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Materiality
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 125
The base building color treatment must include at least two colors
and two basic materials. If the face of the window trim elements
and other facade defining trimming are 4” or larger, then the trim
can be considered the second color, if the trim is used on 70% of all
windows. Otherwise a second color shall be used on a significant
element of the facade such as a bay window or large form defining
area a minimum of 8’ by 8’. An exception to this regulation allows a
single color for each unit if the adjacent units have different colors.
A maximum of 6 different colors are allowed.
I. OVERVIEW - Materiality
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 126
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 127
Trash Collection at Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 128
Trash Room at JCC Altaire Walk, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 129
Package Delivery at JCC Altaire Walk, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 130
Mail Boxes at Arbor Real, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 131
Uitlities Exposed at E Meadow, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 132
Uitlity Screening at Alma Village, Palo Alto, CA
I. OVERVIEW - Operation/ Services
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 133
1. Neighborhood Context
2. Community Circulation
3. Building Typology
4. Landsacpe/ Openspace
5. Privacy
6. Rhythm and Pattern
7. Materiality
8. Operation/ Services
I. OVERVIEW
Item 2
Attachment D: Ad Hoc Committee
Presentation Presented March 7
2024
Packet Pg. 134
Existing Context-Based Design Criteria Figures
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-3
Item 2
Attachment E: Existing
Context Based Design
Criteria Figures
Packet Pg. 135
Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
From: Planning and Development Services Director
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: March 6, 2025
Report #: 2502-4189
TITLE
Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2025
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Minutes of February 6, 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 3
Staff Report
Packet Pg. 136
Page 1 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: February 6, 2025
Council Chamber & Zoom
8:00 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on February 6, 2025 in Council
Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:48 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
Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, provided a slide presentation including
upcoming/recently submitted items and 2025 meeting schedules. She noted Boardmember Adcock
would be absent at the next hearing and asked to be notified of anyone else planned on being absent.
Boardmember Hirsch queried if they could be involved in the discussion other than just make a
presentation on the townhomes. He requested a checkup on the Nobu project.
Ms. Raybould replied it was her understanding they came to conclusions with straw polls from the Board
on all of the different items. There could be a level of discussion but it was noticed as an action item.
They hoped to get a formal recommendation at the end of that from the Board. She believed the Nobu
project was within the timeframe and she would double check the list to confirm.
Chair Rosenberg declared she would tentatively be absent on June 19. She would confirm that later. She
indicated the landscape format was easier to read. She inquired if June 19 was a City holiday.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 137
Page 2 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Ms. Raybould answered the City got a floating holiday for June 19 and not all staff would be off that day.
Action Item
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)).
Chair Rosenberg asked the Boardmembers to affirm if they had visited the site or had any disclosures.
Boardmember Adcock and Vice Chair Chen both reported having visited the site.
Chair Rosenberg and Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch all indicated having visited the site and having
nothing to disclose.
Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation for the 164 Hamilton Avenue
façade modifications including the location of the project site, an overview of the project, images of the
existing versus proposed conditions, key considerations and recommendation.
Boardmember Adcock observed there were a significant amount of stucco joints shown on the drawings
of the building but not on the renderings.
Nicholas Tedesco, applicant, provided a slide presentation with the project location and context, project
existing condition, project proposed design, materials and finishes and 3D views showing the materiality
of the building in its context.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Martin Bernstein requested to not have the back alley blocked with construction materials or traffic
control as a condition of approval.
Chair Rosenberg had questions about the existing metal panel system on the upper level. She wanted to
know if there was a reason why the front façade would have the grout lines reduced and the rest would
remain. She asked for clarification on the aluminum panels near the front door.
Mr. Tedesco answered the goal was to have as few joint lines showing as possible. He indicated they
were only replacing the metal panels in the front. The intention was to paint the existing stucco. He
stated the aluminum panels at the upper left of the windows would be painted a color that would match
the modeled metal panels due to cost. They felt it was higher up and out of view.
Vice Chair Chen queried if the two painted upper panels on the stairwell were recessed.
Mr. Tedesco replied they were slightly recessed.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 138
Page 3 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Boardmember Adcock asked if the intent was to have the same smooth finish where they were
converting existing metal panels of the two different types to cement plaster. She wanted to know if
having a tighter joint pattern on the right side of the building was intentional. She asked for details
about the window colors and why they were removing a window. She observed the canopies were thin
and asked if there would be any ribbing or support.
Mr. Tedesco confirmed the intent was to have the same smooth finish on the existing metal panels. He
stated the intention of the joint pattern was to simplify and have less joint lines where possible. The
windows would be an integral color. The window removal was to help balance the façade better. The
intention was to bring attention to the main portion of the façade and not the stairwell. The did not
think it impacted the light level in the stair. They did not think the stairs would be used much as there
was an elevator at the entrance. He indicated they would work with the fabricator on the canopies and
would have more support if the fabricator felt it was necessary.
Boardmember Baltay asked if the intention was to increase the height of the parapet wall on the third
floor. He wanted to know if the windows were operable. He asked for details regarding the color of the
horizontal metal finish of the stair tower and the windows. He asked if the brick on the second floor
would follow the control joints. He inquired who the owner of the building was and what the use was
going to be.
Mr. Tedesco confirmed the intention was to line up with the interior window sills. He thought the
existing building had a one foot solid portion of the parapet and then metal above. The upper level
windows were not operable. He could not recall about the lower and mid-level windows. He indicated
the client did not request operable windows. The intention of the paint of the horizontal metal finish
was to create one large shadow line out of the three windows. He indicated anywhere there was brick
wall would have all new control joints. The large format stone slab on the lower level would be pulled
off and redone. He stated all three levels would be redone. Levels one and two had brick and the third
level had metal panels that would come off and be replaced with stucco. There would be control joints
in the brick. They were not shown on the plans. The intention would be for them to match the ones in
the stucco on the second level. He stated the building was going to be used as an office building. He
believed it would be owned by an investment company.
Boardmember Hirsch asked for details about the clear windows. He thought the raising of the parapet
seemed like a good decision. He asked about the top mechanical area. He wanted to know what would
happen to the metal canopies in the back. He thought it was important to have natural ventilation as
much as possible. He observed an open deck on the third level.
Mr. Tedesco explained the front portion of the building would be a reception space. The idea was to try
to engage the street as much as possible. The interior program was meant to be an alternative space
with a coffee shop vibe. He said the top mechanical area would remain the way it is and be painted to
match the stucco. The goal was to hide it from view as much as possible. The metal canopies in the back
would remain the same material but be painted to be less visual in the back. He indicated the open deck
on the third level was a very small walkout. There would be a door that opened out to it for
maintenance purposes.
Boardmember Baltay questioned if they could feasibly have a condition of approval regarding access of
the alleyway as requested by a member of the public.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 139
Page 4 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Ms. Raybould thought that should be reasonable.
Boardmember Adcock had questions about the windows on the right of the door on the first floor. She
asked for details about materials on the sides. She did not understand where the steel plate cladding
between the mullions would fall on the elevation.
Mr. Tedesco confirmed the windows fully opened to the outside. He stated what was on the material
board was a patinaed metal. He explained the steel plate cladding between the mullions was on the
ground level and was the metal panels in between the windows.
Yulia Korneeva, applicant, explained the detail was a carryover of an old design. All the windows,
including the ones downstairs, were proposed to be fixed.
Chair Rosenberg clarified all windows on the ground level would be fixed with the exception of the two
operable doors. The elevation accurately indicated swings. She stated the 4 inch detail between the
windows was between each fixed window. She asked if that would apply to the upper level windows and
mullions, as well.
Ms. Korneeva confirmed her comments to be accurate. She indicated the mullion was for an old detail
that would not be used anymore and would be stricken from the plan set in the future.
Boardmember Hirsch asked if it would be possible that the top window on the second level could be
operable.
Ms. Korneeva confirmed it would be possible but it would be pretty high to access.
Mr. Tedesco said they would look into that.
Boardmember Hirsch opined they should attempt to provide some form of natural ventilation in all
rooms and it should be studied more.
Boardmember Baltay supported requesting or insisting on the ventilation. He opined it was inconsistent
that the ground floor levels were significantly vertical whereas the new windows on the second floor
were wider horizontally. He advised one more round of design study on the window mullion patterns
with an effort to make them operable and more closely scaled to what a brick façade building might
have with a greater consistency. He questioned making all the windows fixed on the ground floor. He
recognized privacy issues and suggested frosted glass or shades to allow some visual access to the
street. He felt that design issue required more thought such as high awning transoms or a lower solid
spandrel panel. He expressed the importance of activating the sidewalk and keeping a strong public
presence. He advised considering the vertical element with a different treatment. He wanted them to
consider painting the spandrel between the three windows a different color or redesign it. He suggested
considering using brick lintels to treat the metal braces supporting the canopy. He recommended
making the upstairs balcony a planted area.
Boardmember Hirsch wanted to consider the possibility of having the windows more recessed or having
planters outside in order to allow the opportunity to have an operable window while maintaining
privacy.
Chair Rosenberg felt they were asking the client and the applicant to go beyond their intended scope.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 140
Page 5 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Boardmember Adcock explained how the wall of glazing operated would be a fundamental issue. She
thought removing the sliding door in the revision made sense and having a row of planters would help
make the separation to be visually connected while preventing the public from walking in but adding
architectural interests to that streetscape. She agreed that the mullion pattern on the second floor
required a second look for consistency. She acknowledged having operable windows was a significant
cost but she urged the applicant, building owner and users to consider them. She urged the applicant to
consider Boardmember Baltay’s comments about the canopy. She seconded the comment on the stair
tower.
Vice Chair Chen encouraged the consideration of natural ventilation especially for the upper floors. She
advised reconsidering the molding pattern on the second floor. She felt the nature of the business
would determine if the sliding doors were suitable. She thought having a planter would be nice for
privacy and to soften the street view. She did not have a problem with the proposed materials.
Chair Rosenberg expressed her personal observations stating appreciated the selection of materials. She
thought doing paint instead of aluminum panels between the staircase windows was problematic and
encouraged adding aluminum between them. She agreed with trying to recess the windows on the
stairwell. She had no opposition to the storefront on the ground level. She encouraged them to consider
a planter but did not agree with demanding it. She agreed that the second floor mullions were
inconsistent with the first and third floor. She strongly encouraged natural ventilation where possible.
She liked the suggestion of planters for the small walkout area on the third floor. She thought the
increase of the parapet wall and the reduction of the railing was a clever design decision. She advised
the lower window on the stairwell tower was not necessary. She appreciated that the stairwell tower
was consistent with the third floor. She summarized the ARB’s observations as a whole by advising
revisiting the second floor mullion pattern, the operation of the windows, the potential for planters,
joint lines and the material between the windows on the stairwell. She added the structural canopies
should be evaluated for secondary support.
Boardmember Baltay pointed out that code required the street needs to be activated on the ground
floor so he felt striving to meet that code on a renovation was appropriate. He advised putting a
different mullion pattern in order to ensure privacy while giving the people inside the building the ability
to keep the rest of it transparent. He thought the architect needed to do the job of trying to come closer
to the current city standard of being a retail environment. He felt comfortable insisting that a building of
this scale be required to have some natural ventilation on the upper floors.
Vice Chair Chen asked for clarification if the project was required to have the ground floor be retail.
Ms. Kandikuppa replied there was not a requirement for retail on this property.
Ms. Raybould clarified there was normally a requirement to have ground floor retail but this was a
nonconforming use that was continuing and they were not required to have a ground floor retail. They
were not intending to design this to meet a certain requirement of the code. They had expressed that it
would be a lobby area with a component of a gathering area for the office users. There were
requirements to have visibility but not to how many openings or operational windows.
Boardmember Hirsch remarked it seemed to him that it was more of a socializing space so would be less
of a conflict with the idea having ventilation on that floor.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 141
Page 6 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Boardmember Adcock agreed with Boardmember Baltay about thinking the function through knowing
they were on a public street.
Chair Rosenberg asked the applicant if he felt confidant they could come back with appropriate
commentary for an ad hoc review on all the concerns the Board had mentioned to which he confirmed
he did.
MOTION:
Recommend that the director approve the project subject to the following items to return to an ad hoc
committee:
•Revise the second floor mullion pattern modifications for greater consistency with the rest of
the building.
•Provide natural ventilation to the second and third floor.
•Control joints be clarified at brick and stucco.
•Consider adding planters to first floor and third floor.
*Consider privacy issues with street level fenestration.
•Reconsider treatment of the windows in the stairwell for a more 3-dimensional expression (e.g.
recessing or fins.
•Evaluate whether the canopy will need struts at first and third floor. If support is needed it
should be shown.
Baltay, Hirsch seconded.
VOTE: 5-0
Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Adcock volunteered for the ad hoc committee.
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
Chair Rosenberg asked the board members if they had visited the site and had any additional
disclosures.
Boardmember Adcock had visited the site and observed the fencing had been improved since the last
time she had walked by it. She met with Town & Country between the last meeting and the current
time.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 142
Page 7 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Vice Chair Chen visited the site before but not this time. She disclosed she met with the Town & Country
people after the last hearing.
Chair Rosenberg had visited the site and met with the Town & Country group.
Boardmember Baltay visited the site and had a meeting with the Town & Country folks. He disclosed
that they expressed a strong interest to look into developing the north portion of the Town & Country as
a residential use. That was not previously known in the record.
Boardmember Hirsch had visited the site many times so did not this time. He did not meet with Town &
Country although he read all the letters that had been coming in.
Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, gave a slide presentation about the 70 Encina Avenue planned home zoning
with a background/process, prior recommendation, project location and overview, site and floor plans,
side elevations, CEQA status – streamlined review, public comments received and recommendation.
Chair Rosenberg recalled the Board had seen this project as a pre-application and again as a formal
submittal so this would be the third time they saw it but the second submittal. She also remembered
that at the second hearing the Board was ready to recommend approval but had to wait for CEQA.
Ms. Kallas confirmed the comments to be accurate.
Boardmember Hirsch had inquiries about the garage and zoning.
Ms. Kallas explained usable portions of the garage would be counted toward the floor area. The zoning
code specified that the area used for covered parking would be exempt from the floor area calculation.
That would be approximately 200 square feet per car.
Jeffrey Galbraith, applicant, provided a slide presentation showing the façade, proposed plan changes of
the ground floor and proposed plans of the second and third floors.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dean Rubinson, director of development for Ellis Partners and Town & Country Village, indicated his
organization had been working to explore the design and financial feasibility of a broader housing
project in the north parking lot of Town & Country. The possibility of a combined housing project on all
of the parcels in the north lot had been discussed. He stated they believed they would be ready to
submit an application for a comprehensive project extending across the entire lot in the next few
months. They believed a combined project would be best for all parties including the community and
visitors to Town & Country Village and were eager to continue discussions.
Herb Borock described reasons he opined it was premature to take action on the project which were an
inadequate environmental document and the PHZ had not been adopted as part of the zoning code.
Ms. Kallas explained the PHZ process was more specifically just the PC process. It laid out what the
process for approving this project would be. It would include rezoning the property to a PC zone. The
purpose of PHZ was a Council recommendation to include a higher level of affordability for these
projects as a public benefit was a required part of all PC projects.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 143
Page 8 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Ms. Raybould added that was referenced in the staff report. She clarified that the PHZ came from a
recoining of the phrase “planned community”. In 2014, City Council made a motion to not continue to
keep processing the planned community zone districts. In 2020, Council determined that this was a
viable zone district that allowed for housing. In the City’s efforts to add more housing, they indicated
they would start considering housing projects for planned community rezonings again but they indicated
in their direction to staff in order to give some developers guidelines that if somebody was coming
forward with a planned community rezoning for a housing development project, their expectation was
to have certain criteria be met in terms of additional affordability requirements. The underlying zone
district and process was planned community which was still set forth in the code and was never
rescinded from the code. The project proposed to rezone through the planned community zone district.
There were components of the project that did not meet the current underlying zoning but the purpose
of the planned community zone district was to have Council and recommending boards and
commissions help to create the guidelines and create the ordinance that would set forth the zoning and
in doing so would align the zoning and make their motion to approve the project. The offset of that was
to provide affordable housing as part of the project. Everything was set forth in a process in the code
and the process and proposal were in alignment.
Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there was a comprehensive plan that would have to be created for a
significant development on this property.
Ms. Kallas replied the Board was being asked to make a recommendation on the 10-unit project that
was before them.
Ms. Raybould added there was no requirement for a comprehensive project that would align with other
developments. The proposed project had development rights under their existing parcel. They were not
required to collaborate with adjacent property owners in order to develop their site but they were
asking for modifications to the standards to propose the project. She stated they were not required to
have a coordinated area plan to develop a parcel. If a coordinated area plan was adopted, they would
have to align with that coordinated area plan but development of a parcel and a rezoning did not
require that they develop a coordinated area plan. There was a comprehensive plan for the City that
they were aligning with. The CEQA analysis they prepared showed how the project would align with the
comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan environmental impact report that was prepared.
Boardmember Baltay questioned what the process would be if other properties adjacent to this wanted
to develop in a similar manner.
Ms. Raybould replied it would depend on what they wanted to develop. Based on what was mentioned,
presumably it would require a similar rezoning for those properties. It would not require a larger scale
planning effort. It would be the City’s discretion to determine whether a coordinated area plan was
required for an area and the City would have to have an adopted coordinated area plan in order to
apply. She stated there were two parcels that were part of the proposed project that would be rezoned.
Chair Rosenberg added that would require the project align with that in place before the applicant
submitted for their project and since there was no coordinated area plan, they were not required to
comply with one.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 144
Page 9 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Ed Storm, applicant, indicated he told Jim Ellis he would consider working with him if there was a bigger
project proposed. He recalled having approached Town & Country with this idea two years ago and they
were not interested. He said that they were trying to use the Board as muscle to deny him this project
so he would have to participate with them. He stated he would appreciate them going ahead with the
project and the private sector could decide if there would be a way to merge the two properties. He
would be glad to sit in on a study session and work it out but refused to do it under threat of them
denying his project.
Chair Rosenberg clarified it was the ARB’s job to review the proposal before them and reminded them
they were ready to approve and were just awaiting the CEQA holdup.
Boardmember Baltay had not seen anything in the environmental report that changed his previous
position on this project.
Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand what the note about the electric junction box and how it
would interact with the sidewalk.
Mr. Galbraith explained it was a flash vault. They would be undergrounding a significant portion of the
overhead electrical lines on Encina. When those move down below the sidewalk, they could only go so
far before they needed to have a junction box. There would be some vaults along the sidewalk as part of
that process.
Boardmember Hirsch explained why it was his opinion that the project did not belong on the proposed
site. He was impressed with Randy Popp’s letter and advised it should be read carefully. He mentioned
comments in a letter from the lawyer who was hired to review the project and thought it should be read
carefully. He opined the project should have been started with some form of coordinated plan. He did
not understand why the objective was not to find a method to coordinate the ownership in order to be
one project. He stated the property needed to have more density on it. He did not think there were
enough lots in the City to solve the housing element and this property should go back to Council and
they should reconsider a possibility of a denser project for the whole lot. He described how schematics
could be presented that would show how the entry relationship to Town & Country would work within a
larger scheme.
Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification about the property owners of the multiple parcels.
Mr. Rubinson explained other than the 70 Encina parcels, they leased everything else in Town & Country
including the north lot from a single entity.
Boardmember Adcock agreed that it would be fantastic if this was part of a coordinated area plan but it
was not the project in front of them. The City could have zoning level decisions on how a property gets
used. She stated to hold this project hostage for the dream of a future project seemed wrong. She
remarked that if the project were approved but never got built, it would be fine if Town & Country, the
current property owners and the applicant come up with a combined project.
Vice Chair Chen agreed a coordination plan would be ideal but she thought they should focus on the
package in front of them. She thought the applicant did all they could for the specific site. She did not
think it was fair to postpone their decision. If the applicant and adjacent owners decided to make a big
change and work together, that could be a new application for them to review.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 145
Page 10 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Boardmember Adcock mentioned the current applicant had been working on this for two years at their
cost and the sooner they could build this would be a benefit to the property. She did not think it seemed
fair or to follow any ordinances or laws to not allow them to build this because their next door neighbor
wanted to build something else. Without a coordinated area plan, the City could not stop this applicant
on any legality and they had no reason to design-wise.
Boardmember Baltay shared Boardmember Hirsch’s sentiment, the applicant’s extreme frustration and
Chair Rosenberg’s idea that they were supposed to follow what was in front of them. He thought they
should recommend to whoever would be reviewing this that the building meets the required findings of
the architecture review process, that they demolish the surface parking lot and that they consider
rezoning the entire area of Town & Country and let them decide how they want this to go forward.
Chair Rosenberg supported that idea but cautioned that they needed to maintain this applicant as its
own piece.
Ms. Raybould explained they could make that recommendation. When it went before Council, she
thought they would be asked to make a recommendation on the application before them. If they
agreed, they would provide direction to staff to proactively explore rezoning the property. If the Council
was interested in it for the neighboring properties, they would be directing staff to explore that further.
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, thought Boardmember Baltay’s comments were interesting and that
rezoning the entire property as a PHZ at some point in time would probably make sense if there were a
bigger project and more housing to accomplish but there was no guarantee Ellis Partners would attempt
to do that or their lease would allow them to rezone the property. He suggested they could tell Council
the project meets the findings and the recommendation would be for removal of the parking but also
for rezoning of this particular parcel to PHZ so it could be finished and also consider the rest of the site
as a future PHZ should an application come forward. He explained the reason they went to Ellis Partners
in the beginning was that Mr. Storm was saying the whole site would be a great opportunity for housing.
They put a plan together, presented it to Ellis Partners and there had been constant resistance for the
last three years. He thought if Ellis Partners got their way, nobody would get housing and their project
would fall apart. He thought they needed some certainty they could go forward.
Boardmember Baltay indicated that Ellis Partners had explained to him that they felt it was clear in the
City Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Designation for Town & Country that residential uses were not
prohibited; therefore, going into that exploration did not make sense. He advised they should be
strongly recommending that Council should consider rezoning the entire parking lot area for residential
use. Beyond that, the Planning Commission and Council would have to figure out how to do it.
MOTION 1:
•Recommend approval of demolition of the existing parking lot and construction of the proposed
10-unit 3-story building.
•Recommend approval of proposed rezoning to PC.
Baltay, Rosenberg seconded.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 146
Page 11 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
VOTE: 4-1, Hirsch no
MOTION 2:
•Recommend rezoning of entire north parking lot area, excluding the subject parcels, for
residential use.
Baltay, Rosenberg seconded.
VOTE: 4-1, Hirsch no
MOTION 3:
•Recommend Council reconsider this parcel in combination with other parcels that comprise
Town & Country Shopping Center and defer decision on this project until such a plan is made.
Hirsch, no second.
Boardmember Hirsch reiterated he thought the project was an excellent design but should not be at
that location. He felt even if the project was moved another 20 feet one way or was the other side of
the entry to the shopping center would make a more sensible division. He stated the roadway into the
shopping center would be compromised by the fact that the property was designed in a specific way
with a strong presentation dividing the property into two pieces.
Chair Rosenberg appreciated Boardmember Hirsch’s sentiment but disagreed on the Board’s legal
purview on the subject.
Boardmember Adcock agreed with the principle that if it had come as a larger project or with a
coordinated area plan, they would all have a different opinion but agree it was not in their or City
Council’s purview to reject their proposed project.
Vice Chair Chen thought it made sense to just focus on the project presented to them.
Boardmember Baltay remarked that Boardmember Hirsch’s comments were correct but the process was
not working. He stated they and City Council were falling short of using the power of zoning to solve the
housing crisis.
Chair Rosenberg opined that if this had been thought of or presented by City Council three years ago,
they would be in a different situation. Pre-planning would have prevented ending up in this situation. If
the project was going to be a problem out of the gate, it should have been presented to the architect
and the applicant three years ago.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2024
Boardmember Baltay questioned the bottom paragraph on packet page 113 stating “Vice Chair Chen
preferred a 65-foot limit” and did not recall her making that statement.
Vice Chair Chen recalled that discussion and that she brought up that higher number.
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 147
Page 12 of 12
Architectural Review Board Meeting
Draft Summary Minutes: 2/06/25
Boardmember Adcock wanted to correct “December 5” in the first sentence to December 19. On the
third paragraph of page 107, Michael Quinn’s letter was from Palo Alto Forward, not Ford.
Chair Rosenberg stated the sentence on packet page 110, fourth paragraph from the bottom, “Chair
Rosenberg clarified that the goal of the state density bonus” was meant to read “they were encouraging
people to choose the Palo Alto Standards over the state density bonus”.
MOTION:
Approve the Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2024, with the minor
corrections.
Adcock, Baltay seconded.
VOTE: 5-0
Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas
Chair Rosenberg announced that they wanted to make sure they had narrowed down the ARB awards
list at the next meeting. She asked the Board to review their short lists and see if they had anything to
put forward for that.
Boardmember Baltay inquired if the new Mercedes-Benz showroom was on the list of applications of
possible buildings.
Boardmember Adcock confirmed that was on her list and she intended to photograph it that week. She
would be missing the next meeting but she would send photographs of the few projects on her list to
Steven with her recommendations.
Adjournment
Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:59 AM
Item 3
Attachment A: Minutes of
February 6, 2025
Packet Pg. 148