Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-07 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: May 7, 2026 Council Chambers and Zoom 8:30 a.m. Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on May 7, 2026, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 a.m. Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Kendra Rosenberg Absent: Board Member Marton Jojarth Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None Public Comment None City Official Reports 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, presented the Director's Report. The Builder's Remedy project at 3781 El Camino Real will go to City Council on May 11. The Cubberley Community Center and Retail Ordinance will be at Council on May 18. Items scheduled for ARB's meeting on May 21 are 375 Hamilton Parking Garage and 788 San Antonio. The ARB 6/18 meeting is canceled due to absences. ARB chair and vice chair elections will be held at the next meeting. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 450 Lytton Avenue [26PLN-00016] Request for a Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Construction of a Six-Story, Approximately 76,400 Square-Foot Multi-Family Project Consisting of 72 Residential Dwelling Units on a 0.43-acre (19,700 Square-Foot) Parcel. The Project Would Replace a Paved, 52-Space City-Owned Surface Parking Lot (Lot T). The Project is 100% Affordable Housing and, Accordingly, Requests Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. CEQA Status: The City is Evaluating Eligibility for an Exemption Pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (Public Resources Code section 21080.66). Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities) Page 2 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation on the project's background, scope, floor plans, 3D renderings, and key considerations. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review the project on August 10, 2026. The project plans to redevelop the existing lot into a 6-story multifamily building with 1 manager unit and 71 for-rent affordable housing units, which are a mix of studio, 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units. There will be a common open space provided on Level 2. The project is being evaluated for AB 130 eligibility, which would exempt it from meeting certain CEQA criteria. Staff are consulting the Tamien Nation in accordance with tribal consultation periods provided under AB 130. To a question from Vice Chair Adcock, Associate Planner Kandikuppa explained that the project review timeline will be set once AB 130 is settled. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, added that staff hopes to move this project to Council by August. Regarding a question from Board Member Hirsch, Manager Raybould clarified that the parking spots at this site are intended to be replaced by the Lot D Parking Garage. Caio Arellano, Chief Assistant City Attorney, added that under Housing Element Program 1.4, when the City redevelops any surface parking lots, they need to replace any parking that is eliminated. The idea is to replace these spots with the Lot D Garage at Waverly and Hamilton. The replacement parking is not required to be installed before the Lot T parking is eliminated but the City intends to construct the new parking as close as possible to when the old parking is lost. The Lot D Garage is on the City Council's proposed Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget for 2027. Carlos Castellanos, VP of Real Estate Development at Alta Housing, provided a slide presentation on the proposed project. Alta Housing has been an affordable housing developer for 56 years and is based in Palo Alto. Half of the units will be 2 or 3-bedroom units. The plan has parking for 34 cars and 72 bikes. Adrianne Steichen, Principal at PYATOK Architecture, continued the presentation by talking about the project's design. PYATOK worked with City staff and Council on the orientation of the open space. A few slides showed 3D renderings of the proposed project in the context of the neighborhood. Level 1 includes parking, a residential lobby on Lytton, residential management offices, and building service spaces for mechanical and electrical. Level 2 includes the courtyard, community room and kitchen, residential service offices, and laundry room. Non-habitable outdoor space in the plan is being used for stormwater management. The roof is not accessible to residents and has potential for solar panels. Street landscaping plans include new street trees, bicycle parking, public bench seating, and planters. The courtyard landscaping includes screening trees and shrubs, children's play areas, seating, and low water use plantings. Public Comments 1. Herb Borock stated that the ARB should address design and environmental issues on projects and expressed appreciation for Board Member questions around process and timing for replacing Lot T parking. Herb Borock stated that Lot T and Lot D should be analyzed for environmental issues together, not individually, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Herb Borock concluded with comments on the project's neighborhood, including the original location of the Palo Alto Peace Center. Page 3 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 2. Christopher B. stated that this proposed project has no setbacks, which creates a claustrophobic effect. Christopher B. suggested plants on both sides of the sidewalk and even adding a seventh story if needed to create setbacks. Christopher B. stated that affordable housing is subsidized and will raise the rents of surrounding housing even more than non-subsidized housing. 3. Echo L. wondered if the school district and City have completed a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts of the proposed San Antonio rezoning on public school capacity in the area. Echo L. asked if the increased residential density from the rezoning might create enrollment overflow pressures at the schools and what mitigation measures, such as boundary adjustments, are planned to address potential overcrowding. 4. Jeremy Levine spoke on behalf of Palo Alto Forward, stating that the group is committed to promoting housing affordability and multi-mobility transit options in Palo Alto and is excited about this project. Jeremy Levine opined that the project is thoughtfully designed, hoped the ARB would provide their architectural insight on it, and urged ARB to move the project forward. Board Member Hirsch asked about the property lease term. Carlos Castellanos responded they are working with City staff on terms. It is usually a nominal annual ground lease with a term of about 99 years. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the setbacks, specifically how a multi-story building moving in by the south and east sides would impact this development's daylight and livability. Adrianne Steichen shared that they studied an orientation of the building that opened the courtyard to the north, which reduced the quantity of units. The units on the south property line are oriented to the courtyard and those are secondary windows on both sides of the courtyard. The units most impacted by future development are on the east interior property line. An 11-foot setback was provided for those units for adequate light, air, and separation to the interior property line. Only 1 unit faces directly south and it is set back at least 10 feet from the property line. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the windows along the west side, where there is an 8-foot setback, are operable or need to be fire rated. Adrianne Steichen responded that the windows are allowed to be operable when the separation is over 5 feet, so they can provide less openings but they can be openable and do not need to be fire rated. Board Member Rosenberg commented that the exterior styling of the building includes some beautiful details along the top and noted that the renderings look flat around the windows but there was a callout about having metal trim around them. Adrianne Steichen explained that the proposed window treatment is a deep backset or self-panning window on the street façades, which provides some additional depth from the plane of the building to the glass. They are proposing a thin metal trim fin that would project 2 to 3 inches to create additional perceived window depth and shadow lines. To a question from Board Member Rosenberg, Adrianne Steichen added that the overall building design is trying to walk a very fine line between traditional and modern styles. Downtown buildings were used for inspiration, including the hotel, many of which have a Spanish style. Page 4 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Board Member Rosenberg noted the entry has a plinth overhang and asked how far it sits over the sidewalk. Adrianne Steichen explained that the entry overhang and the top of the building project over the property line. At its greatest depth, it projects about 40 percent of the sidewalk width and reduces to about 25 percent. To a question from Board Member Rosenberg on the residential garage entry, Adrianne Steichen explained they are planning for an overhead door because there isn't sufficient clearance for swinging or rolling. Details on how it will operate have not been decided. Board Member Rosenberg commented next on aesthetics and pointed to the gray panels shown on Sheet A3.04. Adrianne Steichen explained that is a placeholder and the color will be consistent with the rest of the façade materials. Board Member Rosenberg noted the green in the renderings looks much darker than the sample. Adrianne Steichen stated the green color is not set and they are looking for a tone that is soft, not bold. Vice Chair Adcock noted Sheet A3.07 shows windows will be single hung but without the typical 50/50 split of a single-hung window. Adrianne Steichen responded that because it is a Type 3 building, they do not have to provide egress or rescue from windows, so the window opening percentages can be smaller and the smaller opening is considered fall protection for small children. Adrianne Steichen stated that single-hung windows operate and maintain better than casement windows in the same configuration. To a question from Chair Chen, Carlos Castellanos replied that property management would assign spaces to residents who have a car during the leasing process. Chair Chen asked about move-in conditions. Adrianne Steichen confirmed there is no loading zone specified yet and it needs to be worked out with staff. Manager Raybould added that a car-sized loading space is required but a truck-sized space is not required. There is not sufficient space on Kipling and they are discussing possible loading on Lynn. A typical move-in process is to get an encroachment permit to temporarily park a truck in the right-of-way. To a question from Vice Chair Adcock, Adrianne Steichen replied that when entering from Lytton, the elevator is in front and to the right and there is a door from the garage to the lobby. Chair Chen asked about bike parking and access. Adrianne Steichen responded that the plan does not show a door to the street for bike parking because they have found the street door doesn't get used, as people prefer the security of coming through the lobby and some residents may prefer to keep their bikes in their apartments. Board Member Hirsch commented it is preferable to have parking entry on a side street and suggested putting the entrance on Kipling because Lytton is a heavy traffic road and the area is going to grow and have even more traffic. Board Member Hirsch noted the choice of parking entry on Lytton creates poor aesthetics, with the 7-11 store's dead wall and then the garage entry. Page 5 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Adrianne Steichen stated they studied different garage entries and looked at maximizing parking at the request of staff and Council but could not recall why they chose to put the entrance on Lytton versus Kipling. The main location of utilities is on Kipling, which makes it a better location for the utilities spaces, including the electrical recess for the transformer. Storm and sewer utilities are in Lytton but the rest are in Kipling. Manager Raybould offered to look into the garage entry choice before the project goes to Council. Manager Raybould recalled some consideration related to trying not to locate a garage across from the residential and historic uses on the north side of Kipling. It was confirmed that the majority of those 6 houses have commercial, not residential, use. Manager Raybould noted Kipling is fairly narrow, which may have influenced the entry choice on Lytton. Board Member Hirsch asked why the community room and the outdoor space are on Level 2 versus the ground floor. Board Member Hirsch suggested ground floor placement of the community room would animate the street. Carlos Castellanos clarified that the community room is made to serve the community of building residents and would not be available to the larger neighborhood. Carlos Castellanos noted it works well with the outdoor courtyard because it allows resident events to spill into the courtyard. Adrianne Steichen agreed that activating the street would be a benefit but the challenge is the desire for resident parking and the demand for utility spaces on the ground floor, which does not leave space for the community room. Board Member Hirsch suggested stackers be considered as a space-saving parking option and noted that Wilton Court was able to create a ground floor community room. Adrianne Steichen responded that stackers may increase overall building height and confirmed that Wilton Court has a ground floor community room but was able to do so because they dug down to do a second level of garage. That coupled with the EV requirement added cost to the project. Adrianne Steichen referenced an affordable housing project in another jurisdiction that planned for stackers and ended up removed them for cost reasons. Adrianne Steichen stated it is unlikely for this project to use stackers because of cost. Carlos Castellanos echoed the cost implications of stackers and commented that doing partially subterranean parking would be expensive. The related ongoing maintenance costs affect building operation and must be factored in to keep rents low. Carlos Castellanos noted anecdotes from recent projects in Mountain View, one where they removed partial stackers to make the project financeable and one where they removed partial stackers to lower building height and save money. Carlos Castellanos offered to further explore the option of stackers. Board Member Rosenberg pointed out a corner parking space next to the garage entrance, asking if it is realistic to consider it a usable space. Board Member Rosenberg suggested turning it into motorcycle parking, since it is hard to count it as a car parking space. Adrianne Steichen agreed it was a tight spot and stated it has the same clearance to the wall that other spaces have, which meets parking standards. Page 6 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Board Member Hirsch asked about the room in the center of the building and suggested it could be an opportunity to increase parking via tandem parking spaces. Adrianne Steichen clarified that the central room is the maintenance office and storage, which would often have additional appliances like refrigerators on hand and equipment for building maintenance. Carlos Castellanos stated they try to avoid tandem parking because it can become a management nightmare. Board Member Hirsch opined that the building plan is tight in terms of how they fit all the units and reiterated his suggestions to use Kipling as the main parking entry and animate the façade on Lytton by moving the community room to the ground floor. Adrianne Steichen offered to work with staff on exploring these suggestions. Chair Chen asked where the trash collection will be staged. Manager Raybould explained that there would be a curb with no parking, so the trash truck could come along, trash workers would pull the trash bins forward by hand, use the truck arms to lift and dump, and then push the trash bins back. As long as the trash is within a certain distance, there is no additional charge for this process. Chair Chen commented on the stairs along Lytton, noting the roof shape and materials are different from the rest of the project. Adrianne Steichen responded that the plan is to shape the roof to have the roof access be as minimal as possible and there is more refinement needed on how that will be constructed. Chair Chen asked about the laundry rooms on each floor and asked if it's possible to have laundry within each unit instead of shared. Adrianne Steichen responded it is highly unusual in affordable housing to do in-unit laundry and very common to have a centralized laundry. The choice was made to have laundry rooms on each floor versus 1 giant laundry room for the entire building, with Level 6 residents doing their laundry on Level 5. Level 6 has an extra room, labeled Music Room, which could become a laundry room or be an extra room for quiet study or practicing music, which creates additional facility for residents. Board Member Rosenberg expressed thanks for the presentation and disappointment in the choice to straddle the line between traditional and modern styles. Board Member Rosenberg recommended leaning into the traditional look and articulating the window exteriors more. Board Member Rosenberg preferred true half-height, single-hung windows, appreciated the related safety consideration, and argued that sill height is more important to consider for child safety. Board Member Rosenberg suggested the color be a more yellow-green like in the front rendering. Board Member Rosenberg liked the stonework at the base and the centralized trash with a chute on every floor. Board Member Rosenberg Project acknowledged this project is not required to have parking and appreciated that the designers chose to add it. Board Member Rosenberg spoke against use of stackers or tandem parking and anticipated less parking demand over the next 10 years because of the rise of Uber, Lyft, and cyber taxis. Board Member Rosenberg asked for more aesthetic information on the garage door, hoped it was not a plain gray or slatted steel one, and recommended a wood-look metal. Board Member Rosenberg stated no preference toward the parking entrance being on Kipling or Lytton and recommended Page 7 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 reevaluating the distribution of square footage in the studio apartment design because the bathrooms are out of proportion. Board Member Rosenberg liked the music room concept but opined it is more beneficial as a laundry room. Board Member Rosenberg wondered why the manager's unit is on the 6th floor versus the courtyard. Board Member Rosenberg expressed appreciation for the axonometric drawings of the downtown area and stated the project is well done and thoughtful but aesthetics need improvement. Vice Chair Adcock opined the color needs to be a richer, more timeless green. Vice Chair Adcock agreed the windows need trim rather than the 3-inch fin and recommended embracing the traditional look and having standard single-hung windows. Vice Chair Adcock stated that even if move-in/move-out space is not required, there should be designated parking for a box truck because at least a few families will move in and out every year. Vice Chair Adcock said there should be laundry on every floor since the building is intended for families with children. Vice Chair Adcock expressed concern around the blockiness and asked if the plan can be stepped back so daylight and views are not completely compromised if a larger building ends up next door. Vice Chair Adcock said the garden and community space on the second floor are great and them being adjacent to each other is more important than activating the street with the community room. Board Member Hirsch predicted that Lytton will be more commercial than residential in the future, reiterated the need to animate the street, and urged the applicant to study putting the garage entry on Kipling. Board Member Hirsch stated it is unfortunate some units are so tight to the property line. Board Member Hirsch disliked the choice to make the building partially traditional and suggested making the entire cornice around the building consistent. Board Member Hirsch expressed confusion at how recessing was done to break the massing into 4 larger pieces and asked the designers to use their imagination to do something different with the outside aesthetic. Board Member Hirsch noted the street has buildings in a mix of scale, style, and uses, so it does not hang together. Board Member Hirsch considered a modern building on that corner to be a much better expression and commented the planning itself has been well thought out aside from parking and aesthetics. Chair Chen expressed thanks for the presentation and noted this family-oriented project is a good addition to downtown Palo Alto. Chair Chen stated the parking entrance on Kipling seemed better at first but if there are restrictions related to the historic building across the street, it makes sense to leave the garage entrance on Lytton. Regarding massing, Chair Chen appreciated the additional details, bringing the stonework to the second level, and the brick breakout. Chair Chen suggested considering a horizontal band to visually lower the rest of the building and emphasize the corner more, similar to what was done for the stone material on the lower floor. Manager Raybould shared a summary of the ARB's comments. Motion: N/A The ARB took a break at 10:17 a.m. and resumed at 10:27 a.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 800-808/814 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00225]: Proposal to Rezone the Subject Properties From PC-5622 to a New Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Redevelop the Site With an Eight-Story 174-Unit Residential Building with 35 Below Page 8 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Market Rate Units. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070) is Currently Being Prepared. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC-5622). Joey Dinh, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation on the proposed project. This was the ARB's first review of this item. Environmental and departmental review are still ongoing, so the project will return to ARB for a formal recommendation at a later date. From there, the project will go to PTC and then City Council. The location of this project has several other approved or proposed housing projects nearby. The project proposes an 8-story residential condo building with 174 units, including a mix of studios and 1, 2, and 3-bedroom apartments. The primary access will be off San Antonio Road. The current proposal maintains a 24-foot special setback along the San Antonio Road frontage to preserve future multi-modal improvements being studied through the San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP), which goes to Council in June. A rolled curb is proposed for emergency and fire access and is under Fire Department review. The plan no longer includes ground-floor retail. Below-grade parking is planned for this project with a total of 202 spaces. Plans for open space include private balconies, a ground-floor courtyard, courtyard terraces on Levels 6 through 8, and a rooftop garden. Senior Planner Dinh noted the garage door shown on Slide 12 will need to be taller to accommodate trash pickup and the applicant is aware. Slide 14 shows the view that 788 San Antonio will have of this project; PTC specifically asked for ARB feedback on this related to privacy, massing, and the transition to 788 San Antonio Road. To a question from Vice Chair Adcock, Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, confirmed the 5- story version of this project was formally approved but this 8-story version is being proposed in lieu of it and the applicant has the option to go back to the approved 5-story version. Board Member Rosenberg asked if the zoning is approved based on the building itself. Manager Raybould replied that the 5-story project was approved with zoning for 75 units and the retail component. If this 8-story project is approved, there will be a new ordinance rezoning the property. Vice Chair Adcock commented that the previous version had 75 units but the new version has 174 units and wondered if the distribution of unit types was planned from scratch or if the top 3 floors have a much higher density to make this possible. Senior Planner Dinh stated the entire building was redesigned to accommodate the higher number and density of units. Chair Chen pointed out that Packet Page 66 mentions that City Council pre-screened this and seemed okay with a proposal of 120 units. Manager Raybould clarified that Council did not make a formal decision because it was a pre-screening study session but Council seemed to support an application with 120 units over 5 stories, which was a greater mix of smaller units. The applicant has instead come forward with a revised formal application that includes a taller and more dense building. Regarding the CEQA status, Chair Chen stated an addendum was filed that seems to be associated with the adjacent property and asked how that affects this project. Manager Raybould explained that the EIR done for the original 788 San Antonio project included a project-specific component and added the Housing Incentive Program to the entire corridor, so it served as a programmatic EIR that evaluated 818 units along the corridor. For a number of projects along this Page 9 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 corridor, the City is doing addendums to that previously approved EIR to evaluate project-specific components. Board Member Hirsch asked about the red dashed line on the drawings, which was confirmed to be the absolute perimeter of the building and includes the 25-foot setback. Board Member Hirsch asked how the proposed FAR of 4.7 compares to the El Camino Real focus area. Manager Raybould replied that the El Camino Real focus area allows for an FAR as low as 4.0. Board Member Hirsch noted parking is shown fully within the setback. Mark Donohue, Design Principal at Lowney Architecture, provided the applicant presentation, starting with the differences between this proposal and the previous one and noting the efforts made to break the façade into smaller components. Mark Donohue explained that when they were presenting the 120- unit, 5-story plan to PTC, the neighbors at 788 were proposing an 8-story building, so the new proposal was intended to 1) match the desired aspect of the street and 2) maintain the image and salability of the condominiums. The plan still includes a 2-story lobby that looks into the courtyard beyond. The red dashed line on the site plan represents the setbacks at each side. The design avoids having the building, overhangs, or subgrade in the special setback in front. The plan includes a fully automated parking system and there is work to be done on the first subterranean level, which still eases out into the back setback. Mark Donohue explained the operation of the automated parking system, which creates a more efficient space because it eliminates the maneuvering area needed in a standard parking system. The system has a return time of 90-seconds, which is the maximum wait time once a resident calls their car. Another new feature of the 8-story plan is the trash element, which has been moved to the front of the ground level so the garbage truck can collect trash fully within the envelope of the building as opposed to from a curbside pullout. The footprint includes a double-height space so the garbage truck can lift bins without colliding with the building. The garbage truck turnaround functions for move-ins and as a pickup area for Uber and Lyft. The retail area has been replaced with an additional 2-bedroom unit. There are bike rooms in a back corridor and the basement. The upper levels have additional open spaces and step backs to allow more light. Mark Donohue noted the rooftop garden is a sunnier space while the courtyard will be more shaded, which can be preferable as the environment gets hotter. The material palette has not changed from the 5-story version. Mark Donohue offered to pass any landscaping questions to the landscape architect, who was unable to attend this meeting. Public Comments 1. Herb Borock commented that this project has been presented as a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning Project and that no such designation exists in the Zoning Code. Herb Borock stated there are 2 ways to enact PHZ regulations: 1) as an amendment to the existing Planned Community Zone District or 2) as a separate Zone District Regulation, of which he said neither has been done for this project. Herb Borock said because this project is applying for a zone change, it is subject to legal challenge for reasons mentioned in his letter submitted by email to the ARB. 2. Chris B. lives across the street from this development and stated it is important that it be an interactable piece of land with grass and trees that community members can enjoy as they walk by. Chris B. commented on the amount of traffic on San Antonio and said these big buildings should not be close together because it will create air stagnation and cause people to breathe toxic chemicals. Page 10 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Chris B. added it is inappropriate to put a huge building so close to the Bay because it will sink, pointing out that New Orleans will soon experience about 7 feet of sea level rise and much of the city will be underwater. Chris B. stated that while it is appropriate to expand housing because of the robust economy, this project encapsulates the issue with housing hysteria throughout Palo Alto and the Bay Area, with some louder community voices insisting on building as much as possible. In response to public comment around the zoning regulations, Manager Raybould explained that this project proposes to rezone the property through the Planned Community Rezoning Process, which is set forth in 18.38 of the Zoning Code. The Planned Home Zone reference is a term that City Council coined as another name for the Planned Community Rezoning Process. Board Member Hirsch asked if the applicant has seen the automated parking working elsewhere. Mark Donohue responded there are several installations of automated parking and noted he shared videos of it with Manager Raybould. The company, AutoMotion, started in Manhattan, where land is at a premium. Mark Donohue stated there is growing interest in fully automated parking because of the much smaller spatial footprint. Vice Chair Adcock commented on the proximity of the building next door and voiced concerns about daylight. Vice Chair Adcock noted this plan is about 6-foot-7 from the property line. Mark Donohue responded that for areas of the façade within the 5 to 10-foot zone, there is a 25 percent window allowance. Mark Donohue offered to double check with the team that they are hitting the 25 percent allowance and pointed out the further setback to the terrace porch doors, which is under a different standard. Mark Donohue confirmed these windows are going to be operable and window type has not been determined but a luxury product like this typically includes casement. Vice Chair Adcock noted most units have balconies and asked why a few do not. Mark Donohue responded that units without balconies are mainly due to location. There is a studio in the courtyard with no balcony. One in the southwest corner lacks one because the transformers are on the ground at that location. A 1-bedroom at the northwest stair does not have one. One faces the special setback. Mark Donohue stated it appears none of the studios have a balcony. Vice Chair Adcock noted some balconies encroaching into the setback, which Mark Donohue confirmed is permitted. The ARB watched a 2-minute video on how the automated parking would function. Mark Donohue noted that residents with a parking space would swipe their resident card, not pay for parking as the video mentions. Board Member Rosenberg asked how long this system has been in operation. Mark Donohue believed the system had been around for 7 to 10 years and offered to find out. Chair Chen noted that Basement Level 1 shows 3 stalls with only 2 open to tenants. Mark Donohue explained that those 3 stalls are entry bays for the automated parking and noted one of them is drawn incorrectly and should show a garage door. Chair Chen wondered how the bike room on Basement Level 1 is accessed. Mark Donohue shared that the options are to drive the bike down the ramp or enter the adjacent elevator. Page 11 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Chair Chen noted that on Sheet A2.1, the mail room appears to be in the courtyard. Mark Donohue clarified that the mail room is a covered space rather than enclosed and is accessible from the courtyard. Chair Chen asked about the fence or screen for the ground level units shown on the front elevation. Mark Donohue said that the top drawing on Page A3.0 shows 2 screened-in enclosures which are for those units. The screens do not go into the setback but are right on the setback line. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the proposed fire access shown on A2.1. Mark Donohue explained that the challenge with the special setback is ladder access cannot occur from the street, which is too far away. They are still working with Planning and Fire Departments on this and are proposing a rolled curb that can support the required weight of 75,000 pounds, so fire trucks can get up onto that surface and fight a fire from within a special setback zone. Vice Chair Adcock noted Page L-1 of the landscape plan shows agave plantings where the fire access is proposed. Mark Donohue responded that it is incorrect and would need to be replaced with paving for fire access. The direction for the special setback zone is to not have anything permanent. If they end up with firefighting access in that zone, the landscape plan will change to an appropriate surface. A ladder truck requires a minimum of 15 feet from the building, so they would have a little bit of the zone that could be planted as a buffer. Mark Donohue believed the fire truck could not operate from the street 40 feet away because of the cantilever and offered to verify that with the fire marshal. Manager Raybould clarified there are concerns about the fire truck not being able to park where it has aerial access. Staff are still in discussions with the Fire Department about the appropriate solution and anticipate this would require an alternative means and measures report to document what was agreed upon for compliance with the fire code. Mark Donohue added they are proposing a Type 4 building and there may be some relief not yet explored in terms of increased fire resistance from the structure itself because some building types do not require aerial access but instead have enhanced standpipes in the stairwells. Board Member Hirsch noted there are many technical problems to solve in this project. Board Member Hirsch was especially pleased with the garbage setup and asked if the trash removal is being done by a private company. Mark Donahue explained the trash collection was designed for the City's trash collector, GreenWaste. Board Member Hirsch commented that this design could act as a prototype for other projects along San Antonio Road because of how it solves for challenges like the special setback. Board Member Hirsch opined this is a real improvement for San Antonio Road and hoped others would pick up on these design choices. Board Member Hirsch asked about the club house noted in the plans. Mark Donohue explained that the club house is a lounge space in the lobby area. Board Member Hirsch suggested opening up the lobby area by moving the club house elsewhere, perhaps in the southwest or southeast corner of the roof. Manager Raybould confirmed that the applicant can propose a club house on the roof but it may affect the building's total height or add an additional story, which may not be supported. Page 12 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 Board Member Hirsch stated removing the club house from the lobby would create wider access to the elevators. Board Member Hirsch suggested taking some space from the trash room, putting mail in the front lobby, and turning the current mail room into a package room. Board Member Hirsch noticed some patios or balconies are adjacent to bedrooms and wondered if it was possible to rearrange them to be adjacent to the living areas. Board Member Hirsch expressed confusion about the projecting glass elements or fins on the front of the building, which serve no apparent purpose. Board Member Hirsch suggested projections around the windows would add texture and softening. Board Member Hirsch liked how the gray material on the front of the building extends from top to bottom and creates a separate turning element at the corner. Board Member Hirsch disliked how the material changes from gray to tan on the left side and wished it was complete through the base of the building. Board Member Hirsch said the building sets a good precedent for the whole street because the scale is reasonable and separated by shapes. Board Member Hirsch recommended having toilets for the public spaces and noted some privacy considerations where there are balconies located next to each other. Board Member Hirsch stated the back of the building needs either privacy or rethinking and expressed doubts about the automated parking. Board Member Rosenberg said this project is somewhat disappointing and stated the concept of base, middle, and top applies well up until about Level 6 and the rest feels tacked on. Board Member Rosenberg opined this version lost some of the beauty of the relationships in the proportions and feels reactive to the building next door. Board Member Rosenberg stated the front façade is lacking but the blue highlight keeps the door from getting lost. Board Member Rosenberg noted a confusing door placed by the 2 ground floor units, which needs a second look. Board Member Rosenberg agreed that the club house takes up lobby space and creates a pinch point and was confused about why the mail room would be outside. Board Member Rosenberg liked the suggestion to move the club house, perhaps replacing the 2-bedroom unit next to the front lobby. Board Member Rosenberg expressed appreciation for the effort around balconies and getting an exterior balcony for nearly every unit. Board Member Rosenberg noted the southern façade is lackluster but okay. Board Member Rosenberg expressed concerns around proximity to the neighboring building and recommended angling windows 15 degrees or having them staggered and offset to help with privacy. Board Member Rosenberg agreed the blue fins are confusing and nonfunctional and stated metal fins at the windows could be beautiful, provide sun shading, and add texture. Board Member Rosenberg noted the color choices are repetitive gray, white, and beige and recommended turning one of the white portions to a different color, perhaps a muted, dusty blue. Board Member Rosenberg appreciated the interior courtyard and noted much of it is white from top to bottom, which helps with reflectivity but the A4.3 Section West is more successful with the brown texture and beautiful living wall. Board Member Rosenberg appreciated the new terraces and wanted to see the Level 7 terrace grow a little and split the difference in size between 7 and 8. Board Member Rosenberg loved the roof plan and had concerns about a fire pit there being attended or on a timer. Board Member Rosenberg concluded with appreciation for the thoughtful design and amount of housing it brings to the City. Vice Chair Adcock noted people get packages more than mail and recommended making sure there is space for packages instead of a pass-through into the open space. Vice Chair Adcock stated the area around the 2-bedroom apartment and hallway to the exterior needs rethinking. Vice Chair Adcock added the elevator lobby is not essential and there are a variety of ways to not need an enclosed room and make the lobby more welcoming and open. Vice Chair Adcock encouraged consideration of the path Page 13 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/7/26 residents and their guests will take to and from the units and amenities. Vice Chair Adcock spoke in favor of the club house on the roof because having places to gather is great and stated it should include a place to warm up or bring in food. Vice Chair Adcock recommended there be restrooms accessible from the roof garden, gym area, and courtyard. Vice Chair Adcock liked the idea of adding color but did not like the fins. Chair Chen noted the on-site trash pickup is a huge improvement, sets a great example for the San Antonio Road corridor, and improves bike safety along the road. Chair Chen agreed that the club house walls should be removed to create a more welcoming lobby. Chair Chen stated the units facing the street are not desirable but acknowledged that some space on Level 2 was lost because of the on-site trash pickup. Chair Chen suggested having the gym switch with the ground floor units so the gym would face the street instead. Chair Chen appreciated the amenity spaces, open space, terraces, and roof garden. Chair Chen agreed the blue fins on the street front are interesting but did not understand their purpose and suggested using the blue fins in place of glass railings. On the south side of the building, Chair Chen wondered if the patios and balconies facing the adjacent development could be pushed back outside the setback, perhaps by making the living area smaller, though it was hard to say because room dimensions were not shown. Regarding the white projecting structures in front, Board Member Hirsch suggested working with patterning and color. Board Member Hirsch noted a conflict on the ground floor with the elevator and the unit across and reiterated that a rooftop club house is better than the lobby location. Board Member Hirsch stated the lobby-adjacent unit should be kept and recommended working to create access not directly off that corridor. Board Member Hirsch pointed to the black area on the top edge of the right- hand side of the elevation and recommended it be accentuated to create some dimension at the top. Manager Raybould shared a summary the ARB's comments. Board Member Hirsch asked if a package room is needed for a building like this. Mark Donohue replied that since there is no concierge, there will likely be a package locker and noted there is plenty of room in the front to rearrange things. Motion: Chair Chen moved to continue the project to a date uncertain, seconded by Board Member Rosenberg. Passed 4-0. Board Member questions, comments, announcements or future meetings and agendas None Virtual Public Comment None Adjournment Chair Yingxi Chen adjourned the meeting at 12:06 p.m.