Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-04 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: December 4, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 a.m. Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Kendra Rosenberg, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: None. Chair Chen called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared 5 were present. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions No changes were planned. Public Comment There were no public comments. City Official Reports 1. Staff: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer anticipated not having a project ready for the December 18, 2025, meeting, so the meeting could be cancelled and a special meeting held in January 2026 instead. Since the last meeting, the 788 San Antonio project had been submitted. Attachment B to the Staff Report outlined the tentative 2026 meeting schedule. There would be no meeting on January 1 and there were 3 Thursdays in January in which that meeting could potentially be held. There could be a discussion at the January 15 meeting regarding scheduling a special meeting. The Chair would present the Work Plan to City Council on February 2. Board Member Rosenberg asked what the special meeting would address. Mr. Switzer answered that the special meeting would be to potentially make up for some projects. The project tentatively scheduled for December 18 could be heard at the special meeting. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if consideration could be given to holding a meeting the Thursday before or after December 15. Page 2 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Mr. Switzer would need to coordinate with the clerk on chamber availability in regard to holding a meeting the Thursday before or after December 15.. Study Session 2. Study Session Item #2: 375 Hamilton Avenue [25PLN-00277]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Six-Story Parking Garage with a Total of 266 Parking Spaces on the Existing Surface-Level Parking Lot D. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). CEQA Status: Not a Project. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). Chair Chen announced that staff had requested that the ARB review and provide informal comments. No formal action was requested. Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius noted that the project was for a parking garage. The site was zoned as a public facility and the parking garage and future affordable housing were permitted uses. The application was a request for a preliminary architectural review for a parking garage. Ms. Dobkevicius provided a history of the project. The project exceeded allowable height, floor area and setbacks but Council could modify the development standards and setbacks to achieve community goals. On April 14, Council chose Option 1a. Changes staff made to Option 1a were outlined. A materials board was provided to the Board. There was an intent to add permanent public art along the Hamilton Avenue façade frontage and temporary public art along the Waverley Street frontage. The artist was reapproved by the Public Art Commission to engage in a new design process and preliminary ideas were anticipated for early 2026. Until the development of future housing, the inclusion of a temporary public plaza east of the garage was proposed. Staff requested that the ARB provide objective and site-specific comments on the preliminary design to include massing scale, site planning, pedestrian orientation and material selection. The project had been reviewed only for general compliance with zoning regulations. A more comprehensive analysis would be done at the formal submittal. Assistant Director of Public Works Holly Boyd represented the owner for the project. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the proposal was for Option 1a but with the Option C elevation. Ms. Dobkevicius replied that the proposal was not for Option 1a with the Option C elevation but the Board could comment on all 3 options. Board Member Rosenberg clarified that Option 1a was the floor plan and layout of the parking structure and the ARB was considering options A, B and C. Ms. Dobkevicius added that Option 1a was one of 3 options presented to Council. Option 1a had a 6- story garage with an affordable housing site. The intent was to further redevelop it to add an affordable housing element on the right-hand side where the plaza was. The applicant was proposing a preliminary design with 3 possible options for the elevations along Hamilton and Waverley Street. Board Member Rosenberg inquired if the drawings showed only a placeholder for the affordable housing. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that the drawings showed only a placeholder for the affordable housing. Board Member Jojarth queried how likely it was and when affordable housing might be constructed. Page 3 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Ms. Boyd had no information on the affordable housing. In April, Council voted to reserve the space for affordable housing. Ms. Boyd anticipated it would move forward similar to the Lot T Project. Chief Assistant City Attorney Caio Arellano voiced there were no plans or a time frame for the affordable housing. Council had directed staff to choose a garage option that would allow for it in the future. Chair Chen questioned if there was a base requirement for the number of parking stalls and units expected. Ms. Boyd believed the preliminary sketches proposed 15 units and 25 parking spaces. Board Member Hirsch asked if there had been a study to determine if housing would fit on the site. Ms. Boyd responded that the plans had been reviewed and were determined to be feasible and were recommended. Watry Design and Hayes Group had put together sketches and reviewed sketches staff had assembled but they had not been studied in depth. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that the parking garage itself might impact the corner and asked if there was a plan for the shape of the housing building. Ms. Boyd answered that there was only a preliminary layout for the floor plan, which was assumed to be 6 stories. Ms. Dobkevicius added that Attachment A of the Staff Report presented to Council in April 14 included the preliminary floor plans for the units. Hayes Group Architects Ken Hayes provided site information. The proposal included a garage with 6 levels, open space for future low-income housing, bike parking, trash enclosure, future rooftop solar and public art. Mr. Hayes provided details concerning setbacks. Pedestrian zones would include amenities, such as benches, etc. There would be auto access off Hamilton and bike access off Hamilton and the paseo. Pedestrian circulation would be at the east and west ends and off the paseo. Mr. Hayes outlined the materials being considered. The building body had 3 alternatives (Options 1, 2 and 3) and 2 options for the temporary open space. Public Comment Herb B. noted that the project would provide replacement parking spaces for parking being removed from another location, so for environmental reasons there needed to be an evaluation together as a single project. Herb B. suggested there be public restrooms on the ground level. Mr. Arellano responded that the City prepared and Council certified an EIR for the original Lot D garage in 2019. Part of the contract for design services with the Watry firm included preparation of an addendum to the EIR, so it was expected that all CEQA requirements would be met. Board Member Hirsch inquired if this project was connected to the other project the Housing Authority was proposing. Mr. Arellano replied that from the standpoint of environmental impacts this project was not connected to the other project the Housing Authority was proposing. Page 4 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Board Member Rosenberg queried, related to the façade on Waverley (Option 3), if the perforation on the rightmost portion would be closed, if the copper perforation at the corner would remain or be adjusted, if the copper portion at the grand stairway would be eliminated and if a bathroom at the ground level had been considered. Mr. Hayes answered that closing the perforation on Waverley would have to be addressed by the housing designer. The copper perforation at the corner would be eliminated and there would be a solid wall. The copper portion at the grand stairway would be eliminated as it returned. A bathroom at the ground level was not in the scope. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if future housing would need a zero setback and rated construction along the edge and if the paseo would impact neighboring buildings as it related to fire separation. Mr. Hayes replied that future housing would need a fire-rated solid wall between the applicant’s building and the Waverley property. The paseo would not impact neighboring buildings as it related to fire separation. Chair Chen asked what the pedestrian passage had access to. Mr. Hayes explained what the pedestrian passage had access to. Board Member Hirsch inquired if the Traffic Department had studied the garage entry/egress due to it being a very busy part of the avenue with limited visibility. Waverley would have been a more appropriate entry/egress. Ms. Boyd responded that OOT had reviewed the garage entry/exit and found it to be appropriate. There were plans to remove the drive-through postal boxes on Hamilton, which would provide for better street function. Mr. Hayes felt the entrance should be away from Waverley as Waverley could be a more pedestrian- focused street. It could also limit the housing project. Board Member Hirsch remarked that removing the drive-through postal boxes would help with one direction of traffic movement but coming into town from Hamilton was the problem. That intersection should be studied before proceeding with the project as designed. Mr. Hayes stated the EIR study addressed the traffic. Ms. Boyd was sure a traffic study for the increased parking count would be visited as part of the addendum work. Chair Chen inquired if the garage would be disconnected from the back of the building, if the trash room was for the adjacent property, if the bike room was for long-term storage and if the City required long- term bike storage when building parking garages. Mr. Hayes explained why the garage would not be connected to the back of the building. Ms. Boyd anticipated that the existing restaurant would use the trash enclosure and that an agreement would be established. The other 2 properties somewhat adjacent to the paseo stored trash receptacles within their property. Ms. Boyd explained how trash from those 2 properties would be collected. Page 5 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Principal at Watry Design, Inc., Gordon Knowles responded that bike storage was shown as long-term storage. Bike storage was not required within the garage. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if there was a possibility for another area to accommodate the trash for the other 2 properties so it would not be an eyesore. Mr. Hayes answered that handling the trash for the other 2 properties would be a City decision. The trash room was not large enough to accommodate it. Vice Chair Adcock mentioned that it was not the City's responsibility to accommodate adjacent properties but it might be more of an enforcement issue. Ms. Boyd noted that Zero Waste would talk to the property owner. Receptacles were available but they were not being used. Board Member Hirsch queried if the trash receptacles would be screened off. Mr. Hayes responded that the trash receptacles could be screened off. Board Member Rosenberg addressed the planter blocking the pathway and questioned why there was not an end-of-the-building ingress/egress. Mr. Knowles discussed why the planter would block the pathway and why there was no end-of-the- building ingress/egress. Consideration could be given to a pedestrian route at the electrical room accessway. Vice Chair Adcock asked Mr. Hayes which façade he preferred. Façade 2 appeared to be the most cohesive composition. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if all options included the concrete expressions and if the applicant had used the form liners in the past. Vice Chair Adcock urged testing out the form liners if they should be used. Mr. Hayes discussed why he preferred Façade 2. All options included the board form, planters and exposed structure. A panel should be selected. More research would be done on form liners if they should be used. Mr. Knowles responded that the most recent form liner was used for the Cal Ave parking structure. Mr. Knowles was comfortable suggesting some of the form liner approaches if using a good contractor who would focus on the concrete. Cast-in-place form liners would be used. Chair Chen questioned what the metal vertical fin depth would be and if they would be applied only along Hamilton Avenue and if the other sides would have black louvers. Mr. Hayes responded that the metal vertical fin depth would be 12 and would be applied only along Hamilton Avenue and the other sides would have black louvers. Board Member Jojarth liked the 2018 façade design with the vertical columns and the open feel of the garage. The Waverley façade should be aesthetically pleasant because there was no timeline for the housing and the plaza. Board Member Jojarth supported 5 stories instead of 6. The plaza design was not pleasant and felt temporary. Option 2 was fine for Hamilton Avenue but Waverley could be improved. Board Member Jojarth preferred a more open design on Waverley and more trees in the ground, not in planters. Page 6 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Mr. Knowles explained why the amount of shear wall was limited. Things could possibly be done to provide a little more articulation similar to what Board Member Jojarth voiced. Board Member Jojarth suggested reducing the 2 walls to 1 and choosing a desired architectural design and then determining how to make it work structurally. Mr. Knowles responded that the driver was less the structure and more the vehicular circulation with a limited floorplate. The structure could be considered again to see if anything could be addressed. Board Member Hirsch explained that it would be better to have somewhat of a solid building end so that car traffic would not be seen. Circulation and the traffic study were major issues. With the possibility of something happening at the corner, a shorter building would be better. Board Member Hirsch liked the screen opening at the end, which would limit the housing, so it was hoped there would be no housing. Knowing what the corner would be like with housing was required to make a decision. There were other ways to deal with the wall in the corner and Board Member Hirsch suggested looking at the Mercedes- Benz wall. Board Member Hirsch asked why there would not be below-grade parking. Ms. Boyd replied there would not be below-grade parking due to expense. Mr. Knowles thought excavating would be up to 4 times the cost of above-grade stalls. There might also be an issue of needing cutoff walls and treatment of groundwater. The AT&T building foundation was also an issue. Board Member Hirsch accepted Mr. Knowles’ explanation. Board Member Hirsch recommended not using the Hamilton side corner as part of the garage but rather keeping it as open landscape. It was a ridiculous place for a small amount of housing. Chair Chen asked if the different plaza designs were based on budget. Mr. Hayes considered a popup design for the plaza, although he understood from the ARB that it might need to be more thoughtfully designed as it could be there for a very long time and that the side of the garage facing the parklet should be considered more in terms of long term versus how the housing would fit on it. Vice Chair Adcock noted that the Park Option B was not in the packet. It seemed that some options increased the amount of work and cost. Vice Chair Adcock asked if there was a preference to be minimally expensive since it was not known if housing would be built in 3 to 5 years or 5 to 15 years or if it would be built at all. Ms. Boyd answered that staff was trying to strike a balance because the timeline for the affordable housing project was not known. Staff wanted to provide different options. Staff did not want to install something permanent that would cause folks to be upset when removing it. Staff also wanted to provide flexibility in the use of the area. Cost had not been analyzed. Vice Chair Adcock added that Option 3 was the most open on the elevations but it would not make sense to remove the expensive metal in 5 years but it would make sense if it was to be there for 15-20 years. It was difficult to comment without knowing that information. Ms. Boyd voiced that the least amount of day-2 work would be better work-wise and capital cost-wise. Page 7 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Vice Chair Adcock inquired if the applicant had considered removing more asphalt and having more planting so not as much hardscape would have to be demolished later. Mr. Hayes responded that plantings could possibly be reused. The applicant was being cost conscious regarding the landscaping and trying to avoid costs that would be thrown away but the time frame was not known. Mr. Hayes was considering popup parks like Hayes Valley in San Francisco. Board Member Hirsch noted that the popup parks in Hayes Valley were incredibly used. The corner should remain as it was an important part of the project. Board Member Hirsch was concerned with the height and heaviness of the edge of the top part and the sidewalk in the front of the building being minimized. Board Member Hirsch queried if the paseo had to be 10 feet. Mr. Hayes was trying to maintain a 12-foot sidewalk. Mr. Knowles answered that a 10-foot paseo was required for an open façade. If less than 10 feet, the façade would not be considered open and the 20-percent openness and the 40-percent perimeter requirements would not be met. Board Member Hirsch referenced the back of the AT&T building not being on the property line and questioned if there could be more open space there. Mr. Knowles answered that there needed to be 10 feet from the applicant’s property line. Board Member Rosenberg liked all the options but Option 3 the best, although Option 2 was very close to it. Option 2 was great on the Hamilton side. Option 3 was strongly preferred on the Waverley side. The Waverley side should be a beautiful façade because at least a 5-year timeline was assumed. Board Member Rosenberg liked the openness the corner provided. Board Member Rosenberg encouraged more planting and suggested there be ivy on the 2 solid panels, which would soften the façade and reinforce the landscape in the plaza. The entrance on Hamilton was appropriate because Waverley was too close to the intersection. Board Member Rosenberg’s least favorite portion of the project was the landscape plaza and she requested it be flushed out a little more, although she liked the pattern. Wooden benches lasting 5 to 10 years was a concern, so maybe they should be a different material. Board Member Rosenberg liked the popup park concept. It made sense to have a public bathroom but it was not a make-or-break. Vice Chair Adcock stated the extra horizontal on the Hamilton side seemed tacked on and not necessary for building scale. It was concerning that the triangle expression on the corner might need to be blocked off if there should be future housing and consideration should be given to the day-2 version of that. The Waverley side having the one elevation being more open would help with light and folks feeling secure, although it might need to be closed off for future housing. It would be nice to have housing in this location. The plaza needed more greenery and denser planting with a vine on the wall and on-grade planting of trees. What was presented for the plaza appeared sparse for a permanent state. Vice Chair Adcock urged that thought be given to a stand-alone wall or a fence with planting against the trash enclosure for the non-paseo/paseo side. Chair Chen liked the beautiful and elegant garage design, the materials, the perforated metal panel wrapping around the corner and the flared stairs. The ground-level looked pedestrian-friendly. The current garage entrance/exit made sense but it was concerning that there was a traffic light nearby, Page 8 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 which could mean a long queue for cars in the garage. Chair Chen supported traffic studies to determine if the traffic light should be removed. Something could be done to make the ally toward CVS nicer, such as placing the planters along the restaurant side and having a buffer zone between the restaurant and the garage. Chair Chen liked Option 2 for the façade elevations and the openness of Option 3 for the Waverley side; however, it would depend on the timeline for the affordable housing. This was a perfect location for affordable housing; however, as it related to the size remaining, it would be sad to block the corner tower element. If it had to be removed in the future, the garage would look different. Chair Chen asked if it was possible to make the parking garage smaller to leave more open space for future housing with residential setting back and leaving the corner open. Board Member Jojarth liked the project, the corner design and the materials. Board Member Jojarth did not have a preference for additional housing, although having more housing might be better but what the corner of the garage might look like was a concern. Board Member Jojarth did not know how to approve something without knowing how it would look in the future. The corner might be destroyed in the future. It would be good to have designs that include the exterior of the potential housing, anything they would not need to be detailed. The garage might not look good with future housing. The wall on Waverley should be designed with more permanence in mind. The public plaza should be more welcoming. Board Member Jojarth supported a restroom. About 103 net parking spaces would be created at an extremely high cost of over $200K per space. Board Member Jojarth discussed the City being lenient on downtown parking requirements and explained that the City was subsidizing the cost of parking spaces instead of requiring that developers build required parking spaces. Board Member Hirsch did not think the nearby traffic signal was needed and removing it would make the entry/exit acceptable. Board Member Hirsch loved the corner of the building and housing possibly eliminating that was concerning. There must be another more reasonable and not so costly area for housing. Board Member Hirsch found the design to be nice and was waiting for it to happen. [The Board took an 8-minute break] Action Item 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3606 El Camino Real [24PLN-00162]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Multiple Commercial and Residential Buildings Located at 3508, 3516, 3626-3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue, and Construction of a Seven-Story, Multi-Family Residential Housing Development Project with 321 Units, Thirteen Percent of Which Would be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: Eligibility Under AB 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66) is Being Evaluated. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, and RM-40. Chair Chen asked for disclosures. Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, and Board Members Rosenberg, Jojarth, and Hirsch visited the site. Senior Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer said the project was located on El Camino Real between Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue. Adjacent land uses were commercial and residential. A slide showed an image of the zoning map. Page 9 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 On February 15, 2024, an SB 330 pre-application was submitted to the City. On June 10, 2025, a major ARB application was submitted. On September 22, 2025, the applicant requested consideration under AB 130. Following this meeting, the project will tentatively go to Council in early 2026. The proposed project will demolish 12,572 square feet of commercial floor area across 7 parcels and 38 residential units. The project will build 321 residential units: 54 studio units, 109 1-bedroom units, 119 2-bedroom units, and 39 3-bedroom units. Of those, there will be 37 BMR units, which was greater than the 13 percent minimum requirement. The units were affordable to 50 to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). There will be 391 parking spaces, of which 321 will be EV and 45 will be tandem. There will be 280 bike spaces, a vesting tentative map, and tree removals. The project was a "Builder's Remedy" project, defined in AB 1893. The project could not be denied based on inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan land use. The City may only require compliance with objective standards that would apply to the project if it were proposed on a site that allowed the requested density. The project proposed a 3.49:1 overall FAR and 128 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) density, which was permitted within the El Camino Real Focus Area. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant could request a waiver of applicable standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density. AB 130 exempted infill housing projects from CEQA and set strict timelines for City review and decision. A slide showed a photo of the existing conditions of the project site with a vacant lot in the center. Slides showed images of the proposed site plan. Floor 1 had an at-grade parking garage, leasing and amenity areas that fronted El Camino Real, and entrances at Matadero Avenue and Kendall Avenue. Floor 2 included the garage and 2-story spaces for the amenities below. Floor 3 had units, open space, and a pool. Floors 4, 5, and 6 included residential units. Floor 7 had units and an amenity space. The proposed project height was 84 feet, less than the 85-foot height limit for the El Camino Real Focus Area. Slides showed the elevations and renderings. Provided in the staff report for informational purposes only was a detailed analysis of conformance with the El Camino Real Focus Area Development Standards, Objective Design Standards, and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The City was evaluating the project's eligibility for processing in accordance with AB 130. The City started the tribal consultation process and had received requests from the Tamien Nation and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. After the tribal consultations, the City will have 30 days to make a decision on the project. Staff recommended the ARB review the project and provide initial comments. Chair Chen asked for a clarification of the timeline. Vice Chair Adcock clarified this will be the only time the ARB will see the project and that the ARB was not asked to vote, just provide comments. Mr. Switzer explained there was a 14-day period once the applicant invoked AB 130 for the City to issue letters to applicable tribes. From that period, the tribes had 60 days to respond with a request to consult, which started the consultation period that can range from 60 days or more. Following the tribal consultations, the 30-day timeline for City review and decision will start. This will be the only meeting the project will be before the ARB due to the strict timeline. This item was scheduled as an action item on the agenda, so the ARB could make a recommendation. Page 10 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Project Manager Marissa Reilly, from Sares Regis Group, explained that the project supported the City's RHNA goals, and the site was identified as a great place for housing in the Housing Element. The project will enhance the pedestrian experience along that section of El Camino Real and it conformed to many of the El Camino Real Focus Area Objective standards. The site was an underutilized lot in a transit-rich location. A slide showed images of the current site conditions. Designer Nathan Simpson, from BDE Architecture, said the project used a lot of asymmetry while keeping traditional symmetrical windows. The building used the traditional design of base, middle, and top with strong trim lines and a heavily articulated base that used upgraded materials. The project will use a warm, neutral color palette, which included two tones of brick. The accent material was metal and will be on the fins, awnings, and at the garage screening that faced El Camino Real. The color of the metal was a weathered brass. Brown marble will be around the storefronts and at the main entry. The project will activate the pedestrian experience on El Camino Real with storefront windows and active ground floor amenities; landscaped setbacks, seating, and pedestrian-scale lighting; a double- height lobby with visual street connection; and streetscape improvements to promote walkability. There will be a bus stop in front of the building. The main lobby will have pickup and drop off zones. There will be an internalized garage for visitors. All garage access entries were along Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue, and trash was staged on Kendall Avenue. On the opposite corner of the main lobby, there will be a bike shop and bike lobby. There will be a centralized elevator. There will be a mass break at the center front of the building along El Camino Real. Around the building, there will be 10 foot or greater setbacks with neighborhood fences and trees. It will be an all-electric building with no natural gas. It will have a solar-equipped roof, EV charging infrastructure for all units, and enhanced energy and water efficiencies. It will use native and drought- tolerant plants. The project will have 100 percent stormwater treatment. The bike parking with repair station and ECR Bus Line will encourage alternative modes of transit. It was a 100 percent housing project and below the FAR limit. The building scale and density were in alignment with Focus Area goals. It exceeded the parking requirements, provided affordable housing, shielded visibility of parking from El Camino Real, enhanced the ground floor experience, and included façade variation. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Chris J., who lived in the Barron Park neighborhood, acknowledged the need for housing developments, especially BMR housing. However, Chris J. was concerned that the large size of the building would negatively impact the residential neighborhood. 2. Star T. suggested the ARB require a transportation analysis and evaluate the areas which did not meet the El Camino Focus Area standards. Star T. thought the scale and mass of the building were too large for the site, especially without underground parking. There had been no public communication about the traffic impacts. Star T. was worried that the noise from trash compacting would negatively impact the residents on Kendall Avenue. Star T. will send the ARB notes. 3. John K., the president of the Barron Park Association, noted there were concerns in the neighborhood about the project. One concern was regarding the potential traffic impacts caused by the project, especially when combined with the adjacent Creekside Inn project. John Page 11 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 K. wanted a traffic study to be done, noting that the project is along a Safe Routes to School boulevard. John K. mentioned that the size of the project was very large. The neighborhood wanted community engagement if possible within the project's allotted timeframe. 4. Penny B. lived in the Ventura neighborhood across from the proposed building site. Penny B. was opposed to the project. A high-density, 7-story building at that location would be at odds with the appearance and character of the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods. Penny B. was concerned that the proposed project, if constructed, would replace the view from her kitchen window with concrete siding and glass windows. Penny B. estimated the increase in population would be between 600 to 1,300 people with 300 to 600 new cars. There was not enough street parking to accommodate that increase. Penny B. emailed more comments to the ARB. 5. Rob N. supported the project because it was consistent with the City's housing plans and goals. All 4 parcels on El Camino Real were selected by the Working Group and staff as appropriate parcels for new housing. Rob N. felt the project location was good due to the bus stop and new bicycle route. The schools in the area had declining enrollment. Rob N. thought that having more family-oriented apartments would help solve that problem. 6. Sridhar K. lived on 531 Kendall Avenue, across the street from the proposed project. Sridhar K. wanted more mixed usage on El Camino Real, so residents could get basic necessities nearby. 7. Mircea V. wanted a study to be done regarding the increase in cars on the side streets, especially when considering the Creekside Inn. Mircea V. opined the project was poorly designed and was too large. There was a similar project in Maybell years ago that was overturned by neighbors after it was approved by City Council. Ms. Reilly said the ground floor was redesigned to put trash inside building. There will not be compactors on site and trash will only be pulled out on trash day. There was a step-back above the third floor, a major façade break around the fitness room, and a lot of articulation along El Camino Real. The goal was to provide as much housing as possible while respecting the design vision for Palo Alto. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the architects had considered the south part of the building being less than 7 stories and felt a roof garden would be nice on the south side. Vice Chair Adcock queried where deliveries, such as those for pool chemicals, would happen and noted concerns about the traffic on Matadero Avenue. There was an opening on the third floor and the fourth floor had a bridge connector with the fifth, sixth, and seventh floor units above that. Vice Chair Adcock wondered what the experience would be like and thought it could create a canyon between the courtyards. Vice Chair Adcock was worried about the interior landscaping not having enough light to grow. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the 10-foot step-back on the third floor was for a balcony. An image of the third floor design was pulled up. Vice Chair Adcock questioned what the pebble hatched area was and clarified that the trees in the image were on the roof. Vice Chair Adcock asked about a small interior courtyard on the third floor plans and asked if that was for residents to use or only for maintenance. Vice Chair Adcock confirmed the small interior courtyard was not included in the open space calculations and asked why it was not available for public use. Vice Chair Adcock felt it was a lost opportunity due to the lack of outdoor space. Vice Chair Adcock queried how the raised nature of the smaller courtyard differed from the other, larger courtyards. Page 12 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 Vice Chair Adcock referenced the third floor plan image and asked why some balconies had a green coloring while others did not. Vice Chair Adcock questioned what tree species will be planted along the southern extension of the building. Vice Chair Adcock queried what type of trees will be planted on the third floor and confirmed those trees would start above the tops of the ground-level trees. Vice Chair Adcock mentioned the fins on Matadero Avenue were centered while the lobby was on the corner. Vice Chair Adcock said the fins added interest and suggested putting them on the front façade, especially at the mass break. Board Member Hirsch asked how people got to the pool. Board Member Hirsch questioned why there was no entry located in the middle of the building on El Camino Real. Board Member Hirsch wondered what the safety concern was for pedestrians walking along El Camino Real given the large sidewalk. Board Member Hirsch asked about the bike lane that would go along the front of the building. Chair Chen asked if Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue were part of the Safe Routes to School. Chair Chen queried how often the trash would be collected and how the trash room would work. Chair Chen wondered if the tenant parking spaces were designated to the units and if tandem parking would go to the larger units. Chair Chen questioned whether the streetfront spaces were for tenants only or open to the public. Chair Chen wanted clarification on the materials, especially where the marble would be. Chair Chen asked for clarification on the differing window heights shown on AP 3.00 on the sheet. Board Member Rosenberg asked if the property fed into Barron Park Elementary or Juana Briones Elementary. Board Member Rosenberg wondered what prompted the design decision to angle the interior corners of the courtyards and if the builders had previous success with angled units. On floor plans J1.1 and J1.0, there were bedrooms not on an exterior wall. Board Member Rosenberg asked about light and air getting to those rooms and if the rooms complied with egress. Board Member Rosenberg queried why there were no fins on Kendall Avenue and if the builders considered adding fins or something similar on the façade along El Camino Real. Board Member Rosenberg felt the mass break was deemphasized and wondered why the builders did not do anything visually with that part of the façade. Board Member Rosenberg questioned if the builders would emphasize the existing bus stop. Board Member Rosenberg asked about the pet area on the ground floor and why there were no pet areas on the third floor. Board Member Rosenberg queried how to enforce pets not utilizing the courtyards on the third floor. Board Member Jojarth asked if the builders had considered changing the address to Matadero Avenue. Board Member Jojarth wondered if the builders felt constrained by the diagrams presented in the code and if the builders could vary the building height. Board Member Jojarth questioned what the builders thought about adding amenities like a coffee shop or convenience store. Ms. Reilly explained that having fewer stories on the part of the building furthest from El Camino Real had not been considered due to the goal of providing as much housing as possible. The Focus Area required a 14-foot height on the ground floor. Having double-height features further activated the pedestrian experience along El Camino Real and shielded the parking. There was a public art requirement for the project. The mass break was considered as a potential place for a public art feature. Mr. Simpson said the project will have an internal pool and spa maintenance room on site. Deliveries would be at street level. The third floor opening and bridge connector created integrated spaces. That space was meant to be used as covered open space that created visual connection and enlarged the Page 13 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 overall open space. Courtyards had a southern orientation to ensure they get sunlight. The back of the building had open courtyards facing the neighbors with the intent to help with massing breakdowns. The back of the building had a 10-foot step-back on all units at the third floor. The step-backs on the third floor were for private patios for the residents of those units. The smaller courtyard was not open to use for residents because of its size and being farther away from amenities. Raised planters would be for stormwater treatment. The entrance was not on El Camino Real due to the heavy traffic. Garage access would not be realistic on El Camino Real given the bus and bike lanes. Most people who visit the site will access the building via the garage entry. The bike lane on El Camino Real was already installed. Mr. Simpson did not know which elementary schools the property would feed into. Trash would be collected 2 to 3 times a week. There will be 2 trash chutes in the building, which will be upsized. There will be 2 trash rooms to ensure that one still works if the other is down. Building maintenance and managers will stage trash into the Kendall Avenue trash room on the day of trash pickup. Parking was unbundled but will be assigned. Tandem parking would generally go to larger units. The garage had visitor parking off of Matadero Avenue, which was about 6 stalls. Everything else was gated. All the amenities were for residents only. There were internal discussions about changing the address to Matadero Avenue. There were a lot of features added to reduce the overall scale of the building. The design aesthetic was intentional. It would be cost prohibitive to add more floors to the front and fewer on the back, which could necessitate switching to Type 1 construction. Amenities like coffee shops were common but would still be for residents only. The storefront configuration along El Camino Real utilized a dark brick with a marble inlay. The marble was along El Camino Real and stretched to Kendall Avenue. The blue frontage shown on the second floor plan image stretched from Matadero Avenue to the mass break. That double-height space was used to conceal the garage and create taller amenities. On the plans for the third floor, the green color identified private decks versus the open space on the podium, however there was a graphic issue on the plans where some of the coloring was missing. Angling the corners of the courtyards enabled the builders to achieve greater densities. The angled units tended to rent successfully. Floor plans J1.0 and J1.1 would have borrowed light bedrooms. The wall would be a glazed, frosted glass. Those units would have barn doors or large sliding doors on the side. The fins were meant to help with wayfinding. There were no fins on Kendall Avenue because it was a secondary frontage. Fins had not been considered elsewhere. There was no existing tree in the mass break on El Camino Real. The project originally did not have a mass break, so one was added intentionally. The building stepped back at the corner by the bus stop. Principal Morgan Burke, from the Guzzardo Partnership, said shade-tolerant species would be planted in the open spaces. The height of the space would allow enough light penetration for the plants. The pebble-hatched area was non-occupiable space over the garage, which will be crushed rock or decorative stone to cover up the waterproofing. The trees in the image were on top of the garage. There was a 4-foot-wide service path along the parapet, which was how planting would be serviced. The interior vegetation in the small courtyard was only for maintenance. It provided a visual break for the building. The small courtyard was raised a minimum of 26 inches above finished grade, which was not different than other courtyards. The trees along the southern extension will be Catalina Ironwood, which grow to about 25 to 30 feet tall and will provide adequate screening along those frontages. The trees on third floor would be smaller due to the limited volume of soil but would be 10 to 12 feet tall. The pet area was on the ground floor, which was fenced in and had trees. PG&E had transformers Page 14 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 nearby, which required vehicular access. There was no pet area on the third floor because it posed a sound and maintenance issue. Property management would enforce people not utilizing the third floor courtyards for pets. Mr. Switzer said the open space calculation was garnered from the patio areas provided for most units as well as the other courtyards and breezeway. Caltrans placed class 3 and class 4 bike lanes along El Camino Real. Kendall Avenue and Matadero Avenue were Safe Routes to School. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer suggested limiting the first round of commentary to 3 minutes each due to the time. Board Member Hirsch proposed having an entrance on the center of the building along El Camino Real. Board Member Hirsch felt the building was over-decorated with the amount of different materials and wanted to see less materials used better. Board Member Hirsch opined the base, middle, top feature did not work with the 400-foot-long building. Board Member Hirsch thought the top of the building should be broken up more. The third floor scheme was good. Board Member Hirsch suggested focusing things, such as an elevator and mail drop off, near the center of the building. Board Member Hirsch believed the break in the front façade should be a front entry door and a major piece of architecture, maybe with the fins. Board Member Jojarth wanted the façade along El Camino Real to be broken up more, potentially by height or style. Board Member Jojarth liked the Matadero Avenue side but the front was busy with a lot of materials. Chair Chen worried that having the garage access, trash pickup, etc., on the small side streets would put a lot of pressure on the existing neighborhood and suggested adding something on El Camino Real to help relieve some of that pressure. If that was not possible, Chair Chen suggested increasing the setbacks on the side streets to give more room for loading zones, etc. There were a lot of tenants but not enough tenant parking. Chair Chen liked the amenities but felt the pool was small for the number of residents. Chair Chen agreed the front elevation should be broken up more and liked the fin elements. Vice Chair Adcock did not like having 7 stories along the south side of the building due to the proximity to 2-story, single-family residences. Vice Chair Adcock thought the current façade breaks were not impactful enough and urged the builders to use fins or something similar to break up the El Camino Real façade. Vice Chair Adcock felt the small, angled apartments with only one window seemed like an unpleasant experience. Vice Chair Adcock believed there were not enough amenities for the amount of residents and was shocked that the smaller courtyard on the third floor was not available for public use. Vice Chair Adcock suggested letting some units have larger balconies. Board Member Rosenberg agreed with Vice Chair Adcock's statements. Board Member Rosenberg suggested the building step down toward the back and create a rooftop garden. Board Member Rosenberg thought making the secondary courtyard on the third floor accessible would be beneficial. Board Member Rosenberg felt the façade on El Camino Real was too long and repetitive and agreed it should be broken up more. Board Member Rosenberg proposed emphasizing the mass break more by creating a mini lobby to make it more functional and enhance the façade. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to expand the balconies wherever possible. Board Member Rosenberg liked the pet area but Page 15 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/04/25 suggested a dog walking path along the trees that surrounded the building. The internal circulation with elevator placement was appropriate. The builders did a successful job hiding the parking structure. Mr. Switzer mentioned the existing infrastructure on El Camino Real and said that recommending a vehicular entrance on El Camino Real would be in conflict with some standards. NO ACTION TAKEN Approval Of Minutes 4. Approval of Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 18, 2025 5. Approval of Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2025 6. Approval of Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2025 Chair Chen said, for the meeting minutes from October 16, 2025, the date on the first paragraph on packet page 134 should be October 16, not January. MOTION: Chair Chen moved, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock, to approve all 3 meeting minutes as written with the change stated. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 for the September 18, 2025, and October 16, 2025, meeting minutes. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0-1 for the October 2, 2025, meeting minutes. Rosenberg abstained. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Board Member Rosenberg asked if the board members will get new parking tags. It was confirmed there will be new parking tags. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 12:14 p.m.