Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-21 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: May 21, 2026 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:34 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 and welcomed everyone. Administrative Associate Samuel Tavera called roll and declared there was a quorum. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner Steven Switzer announced that no changes were planned for the meeting. In-Person Public Comment None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Senior Planner Steven Switzer noted that there was a newly submitted project located at 2197 East Bayshore Road, which was a site and design application that would construct 62 residential townhome units. On June 4, the Board would address the city parking garage located 375 Hamilton Avenue and a builder’s remedy project located at 762 San Antonio. The June 18 meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum because of absences. If there were other absences planned, it should be directed to staff's attention. Chair Chen mentioned that she would not attend the next meeting. Vice Chair Adcock asked if Tier 1 and 2 wireless would be addressed on the next agenda. Mr. Switzer stated that Tier 1 and 2 wireless would not be addressed on the next agenda as some projects had shifted. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00294]: Review of an Application to Rezone the Subject Properties From Service Commercial (CS) to a New Page 2 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to Redevelop the Site With an Eight- Story Mixed-Use Building With 167 Residential Rental Units, Including 28 Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, and Approximately 1,400 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail Space. 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: Service Commercial (CS). Chair Chen, Vice Chair Adcock, Board Member Rosenberg, Board Member Jojarth, and Board Member Hirsch disclosed that they had visited the site. Senior Planner Joey Dinh supplied slides. Staff was requesting initial feedback on several architectural and site planning topics related to the findings the ARB would have to make in the future to accompany a more formal recommendation and included building height, massing, step-backs, transitions to nearby properties, frontage design especially along San Antonio Road, treatment of the ground-floor retail corner, façade articulations, materials, open space, and garage access for trash, loading, and fire access. Staff was not requesting a formal recommendation at this meeting but to receive initial feedback, so the applicant could consider refinements before returning the project to ARB for a formal action. CEQA and departmental reviews were ongoing. After the ARB’s review, the project would be presented to the PTC for a formal recommendation, and then the project would return to Council for a final decision. The site was located on the corner of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street, and the corridor was dominated by one- and two-story commercial and service uses, but the corridor was in the transition process. There were several approved or proposed nearby housing projects. The San Antonio Road Area Plan (SARAP) was not yet adopted, but as this site was in that plan area, the future vision for the corridor was relevant to this project, especially as it related to the frontage design, special setbacks, and potential for future multimodal improvements. Council was expected address the Area Plan in June and provide staff with a recommendation for the preferred or core scenario for the Area Plan. Mr. Dinh stated the plan presented several options, but based on feedback, the most likely recommended option would include some form of high-density housing with maximum permitted heights up to 90 feet, more contemplated along the southern side of San Antonio, and retail or active ground-floor uses at key corners. There were several options for multimodal improvements, and staff hoped to get direction from Council, but it would include enhanced pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Mr. Dinh shared a slide showing the proposed PC/PHZ compared to what was currently allowed or required under the base zone district of service commercial and the Housing Incentive Program. Mr. Dinh detailed what was being proposed as it related to building height, type and number of units, ground- floor commercial, floor area ratio, and parking spaces. Mr. Dinh provided a sliding showing how the project operations would be organized. The San Antonio frontage was designed with a retail corner, and the ground floor would include a residential lobby, a co-work space, and a bike room, and there would be open space and landscaping. Vehicle access and most, if not all, of the operations would be on Leghorn Street, so no curb cuts were being proposed along San Antonio Road. Trash staging and pickup, fire access, and loading would be on Leghorn. The bike room would have approximately 1 long-term space per unit. The project proposed 74 parking spaces to include car share or guest/future resident spaces, which roughly equated to a ratio of 0.44 spaces per unit. Mr. Dinh voiced that the applicant had provided a draft Transportation Demand Management Plan that addressed the lower parking calculation, but it was under review by the Office of Transportation (OOT). Page 3 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Staff requested ARB’s feedback on the parking calculations since it would affect the parking strategy, site circulation, design, and garage access. The proposed garage entry and arrival area would be off Leghorn Street. Mr. Dinh provided details as it related to floor plans, open space, and landscaping. The proposed landscape and plant pallet was mostly native and drought-tolerant species. The project was revised after the Council pre-screening to address feedback related to massing and step-backs, which Mr Dinh detailed. Mr. Dinh furnished slides showing the vertical organization of the building sections and outlined the materials that would be used. As for transition and privacy, the project was adjacent to the 808 San Antonio Road Project, which had an existing residential PC, which was under review to change, but because the PC was in place, the special requirements as identified in Code Section 18.38.150 would apply. Mr. Dinh displayed a slide showing the privacy exhibit identifying façade breaks, reduced glazing, some solid balcony railings, and interior window coverings as it related to the northern elevation, and staff requested feedback on the transition, privacy concerns, and impacts to light and air. Staff recommended that the ARB provide initial feedback and then continue the project to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if 67-percent lot coverage related to ground-level and not the podium level. Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould answered that lot coverage was based on the ground level. Certain projections on upper levels extending more than 4 feet would count toward lot coverage. Ms. Raybould would confirm that everything was included in lot coverage. Senior Planner Steven Switzer added that A0.1 of the plans denoted the amounts of lot coverage. Board Member Rosenberg asked what the path would be for trash pickup and if 808 San Antonio’s trash staging was on San Antonio. Mr. Dinh explained how trash would be removed from the site and onto the staging area. The trash staging for 808 San Antonio would be onsite. Chair Chen queried how many parking spaces the State required for the proposed retail. Ms. Raybould replied there was not a parking requirement for 1,500 square feet or less of retail. However, as this was a planned community rezoning, all aspects of the development standards would be as negotiated. Board Member Hirsch questioned if bike parking would include motor-driven bikes. The question was raised because the project was somewhat remote and low in onsite vehicles. Board Member Hirsch asked if staff wanted feedback related to privacy for the adjacent neighboring building and what staff had been studying. Ms. Raybould would investigate bike parking as it related to motorbikes. OOT encouraged that there be charging plugs in the bike rooms for E-bikes, although it was voluntary and not required in the code. Mr. Dinh responded that staff wanted feedback on transition standards and privacy impacts on the corridor but primarily along the northern elevation. Related to privacy of those units, the building employed some façade breaks, reduced window glazing, internal window coverings, and solid material for balconies. Board Member Hirsch asked if such would be discussed with previous applicants. Page 4 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Ms. Raybould answered that it would be discussed. There were early discussions about step-backs from the neighboring buildings, and both developers had concerns about how much that would affect their ability to provide the number of desired units. The discussion had been around what was related to privacy and what was related to massing. The Planning Commission did not believe step-backs were warranted. Staff wanted more step-backs on the San Antonio frontage, but larger setbacks between the buildings were not needed. The developer at 808 made some changes to the design so the massing would set back a little, and some balconies were added, so the discussion was more about privacy concerns and how those uses could coexist. Senior Project Manager at KTGY Group, Inc., Edward Kim voiced that the current design reflected feedback from the Council pre-screening. The applicant was evaluating the parking approach in response to PTC feedback. Mr. Kim focused the presentation on massing, street frontage, ground-floor activation, privacy, and materials. The project was organized to support the San Antonio corridor's planned transition toward a pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use environment. Mr. Kim discussed the building design and the courtyard. The goal was to reduce the continuous length of the street-facing elevation and to create a finer grain pattern at the pedestrian level. The proposed project incorporated retail at the corner of the intersection between Leghorn and San Antonio in response to the Council pre- screen. The proposed building scale would be consistent with the adjacent properties, and the upper story step-backs, recessed courtyards, materials, and façade articulation would differentiate the building relationship with its neighbors while contributing to a diverse San Antonio corridor. Mr. Kim discussed the goal to reduce the apparent mass through 3 primary moves and the goal for ground floor to enhance the pedestrian experience. Mr. Kim stated the residential lobby, retail, co-working amenity, and bicycle facilities were intentionally positioned along San Antonio Road to provide day-to-day use and pedestrian/cyclist access points. The design would be a continuous, activated frontage where ground-floor programming and landscaping would work together from the public realm into the building. The project would consolidate the 5 curb cuts on San Antonio and Leghorn into 1 access off Leghorn to reduce conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists along the San Antonio corridor and support a more continuous multimodal path. Mr. Kim provided details related to the consolidated entry. The project would provide privacy measures along the northern façade, which were outlined in the ODS standards in addition to a few additional strategies, related to glazing, façade breaks, balcony offsets and solid railing, window position, and interior window covers and privacy treatments. The project had a cohesive material strategy across all elevations, which were outlined in the objective design standards. Mr. Kim provided details of the materials that would be used. The proposal would reduce apparent building mass, increase ground-floor engagement with the public, consolidate vehicle access points, and apply a consistent material approach across the building façades. Public Comment Steve L. discussed parking and the project being about the future and the City’s goal to reduce car dependence. The San Antonio Area Plan would provide significant mobility enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists, possibly shuttles, and eventually transit. Herb B. discussed environmental issues and stated that planned home zoning was not included in the zoning code as required by law and requested that overnight parking of oversized vehicles, sea level rise adaptation, the underground water table, and the earthquake maps be taken into consideration. Page 5 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Board Member Rosenberg asked how trash would be handled and where residents would deposit it. It appeared that A4 would be a studio apartment, which should be clarified on the bedroom count. The A1s and variations thereof affected A6, A7, etc., and appeared to have an internal layout for bedrooms with no exterior windows, and Board Member Rosenberg inquired if there was a light and air requirement for bedrooms. Board Member Rosenberg referenced a specific A1 and queried if to would not be a studio because there was extra width to make it a one bedroom. Mr. Kim replied, regarding trash, that onsite management would use the termination room within the building and move it and locate it within the trash staging area outside the building frontage on Leghorn. Mr. Kim referenced Sheet A1.0 and detailed the trash route and referred to Sheet A2.2 and explained how residents would deposit trash. As for the A1s, the borrowed light code requirement would be triggered, so there would be adequate air and light. The specific A1 Board Member Rosenberg referenced would not be a studio because there was extra width to make it a one bedroom. All the internal spacing complied and met the standards for living and sleeping areas per code, and light and air would be addressed with openness through the sleeping area. Board Member Rosenberg understood that it complied with code but encouraged that bedrooms be located on the exterior for fresh air purposes. Vice Chair Adcock addressed Sheet A1.0 and asked if the trash would go in the fenced area and if management would roll the bins to the street in the early morning. Vice Chair Adcock pointed out the area labeled move-in/move-out and inquired if a moving truck would stage in that area. Vice Chair Adcock asked if there was a bike lane on Leghorn and how moving trucks would impact bike routes. Mr. Kim confirmed that trash would go in the fenced area. Service time was unpredictable, but it was anticipated that onsite management would take the trash out in the early morning. Personnel or staff for the waste hauler would pull the bins out of the fenced area and service each individual bin separately one at a time. A moving truck would stage in the area labeled move-in/move-out. Onsite management would be responsible for maintaining hours of operation and when resident loading would happen, so it would not overlap with trash service days. Ms. Raybould responded there was no bike route on Leghorn, and she did not believe there was a shared bike lane, but she would double check. Chair Chen stated there was a loading zone labeled for San Antonio, which could impact the bike lane. Planning Manager Raybould stated there would be not be a loading zone on San Antonio. Vice Chair Adcock voiced that moving trucks could be parked for some time, which could block bike routes. Vice Chair Adcock queried where deliveries and ride-share services would occur and if the ramp with the tight turn radius would be one way. Mr. Kim answered that it would be determined where deliveries and ride-share services would occur. The ramp would be two-way, and it could be chamfered. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if chamfering the ramp would mean losing parking space, what the construction type would be, why the 7th floor would be 11’3,” and if the outdoor terrace would be on pedestal pavers. Page 6 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Mr. Kim replied that chamfering the ramp could mean losing parking space, but the turning radius could be studied. The ramp slopes would meet the transition requirements. The construction would be 5 levels of Type 3 over 3 levels of Type 1. The 7th floor would be 11’3” to make an accessible path to the roof terrace within the clubroom space. The outdoor terrace would be on pedestal pavers. The applicant would continue to refine and coordinate the plumbing drops. The drops for the courtyard and the drainage slopes were as far away from the residential units as possible. Vice Chair Adcock stated that the floor to floor, particularly with the terraces, seemed very tight being right up against the 90 foot with 89-something. Vice Chair Adcock asked how the tandem parking in a rental environment would be managed, if there would be space for tree planting between 788 and 808 on the north side and within the courtyard, and if it was possible to have green walls along some of the walls without balconies, so there would be greenery instead of a solid wall. Level 6 having a view of a solid wall would be problematic. Vice Chair Adcock inquired what the retail options were for a 1,400 square-foot space. Mr. Kim answered that parking would be available on an as-needed basis per tenant. The tandem stalls would be dedicated to the two-bedroom or larger units with multiple vehicles. It was anticipated that management would do the allocation. Regarding the north side, there was a need to comply with a fire separation distance, so the path was dedicated to access to the rear for a fire incident. The green hatch along the north was to accommodate for some type of bioretention or stormwater treatment. The applicant would explore the type of vegetation that made the most sense. There was a need for bioretention or filter planters on the podium courtyard for stormwater treatment, but landscaping could be planted within the spaces. The stormwater treatment would be raised, so the landscaping would be elevated, so the plantings would be visible at the third-floor level. The applicant could look into there being green walls along some of the walls without balconies. Retail options for a 1,400 square-foot space included coffee, quick dining, and pickup. Community/resident serving retail could thrive within that footprint. Vice Chair Adcock felt 1,400 square feet was too small for a restaurant as space was needed for storage, a kitchen, etc. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if the material would be terracotta or GFRC. Mr. Kim responded that 1,400 square feet was enough space for a restaurant. The material would be GFRC with an overall look of terracotta. Senior Director of Development at Grubb Megan Watson added that 1,400 square feet was perfect for a coffee shop-type use. Board Member Rosenberg displayed a visual of the material and asked if all 3 would be used in a mixture. Mr. Kim confirmed that all 3 would be used in a mixture. Board Member Hirsch questioned if stormwater retention could be on the roof. It appeared that the retention issue had not been solved. The number of retention areas was not shown on the plans. Board Member Hirsch asked how San Antonio Road would be used for building access for motor vehicles. It seemed that the amount of traffic would be overkill for an interior area. Page 7 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Mr. Kim stated that stormwater retention was extremely heavy for a roof structure, so they would put it on the ground or on a concrete podium. Mr. Kim referred to Sheet A0.10, the pedestrian and bicycle circulation diagram, and explained that there were substantial opportunities for ingress and egress along San Antonio, which was somewhat the primary goal for having the external-facing access points for residents, guests, and especially retail. It was anticipated that with the full buildout of the San Antonio corridor that bicyclists and pedestrians would activate the street frontage frequently to get to the anchoring corner of retail. The applicant would strategize how to solve for motor vehicles. In terms of day-to-day use for vehicular access, residents would park in the garage and access it internally. Mr. Kim stated the ultimate goal was to bring everyone out toward San Antonio. There was a challenge in being one of the first projects prior to a San Antonio Corridor Area Plan. Board Member Hirsch noted that the neighboring building had a layby on the site so cars could pull off San Antonio for drop-offs, etc., although that might not be the best solution. Board Member Hirsch asked if the applicant was waiting to get feedback from the San Antonio study. Mr. Kim stated the applicant’s team needed to coordinate with the San Antonio corridor vision, and it would be studied. Board Member Hirsch stated the garage might not be the best space for drop-offs, etc. The applicant and the City, with the study, needed to ensure a solution to San Antonio. It might be possible to designate certain parking along the street edge or onsite, but the problem needed to be solved and coordinated with all the transportation issues. Board Member Hirsch inquired if the facia and soffit color had been determined, what area would be designated for mail and package delivery, and if there should be a garbage shoot on the way to the elevator instead at the rear of the building. Mr. Kim responded that the facia and soffit color had not been finalized. It was anticipated that it would be a pink-orange tone, but it could be refined. A designated area for mail and package delivery had not yet been planned for, but it would be studied. The applicant could study there being a garbage shoot on the way to the elevator instead at the rear of the building. Board Member Jojarth queried if thought had been given to canine hygiene and if there would be a space for children. Mr. Kim addressed Sheet A1.0 and noted there was a designation location for a pet spa and wash on the ground floor adjacent to the bike storage. There was a spot dedicated for a dog run behind the building along the eastern edge. There would be access from the lobby to the western edge to a dog run. Mr. Kim outlined the path one would take to the dog run. The offering for the unit typologies was not heavily family oriented as they were primarily studios and one-bedroom units, so there was not an amenity package specifically for the family-oriented market. Board Member Jojarth commented that it was common families to live in 1- or 2-bedrooms units, and many single parents were not able to afford a larger home. Board Member Jojarth referenced Sheet A0.10, bicycle circulation, and questioned why 1 of the 2 entrances was highlighted with the red arrow. It appeared that both access points would have a zigzag shape, which might not be convenient. Both paths crossed the sidewalk, and the entry should be safe for pedestrians and convenient for bicyclists. Board Member Jojarth addressed Sheet A2.3, the building plan for Levels 4 to 7, and asked if thought Page 8 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 had been given to mirroring the floor plan so the balcony would be closer to the courtyard area, the bedroom would not be directly behind the elevator, and it would result in more light. Mr. Kim stated that both bicycle entrances served as access points and could be highlighted. The applicant was showing a dedicated bike lane separate from vehicular traffic. Mr. Kim understood that as the corridor was built out where the bike lane would be within that 25-foot setback would be up for discussion. The applicant was taking a first pass at showing that there would be a dedicated and separate bike lane, but there would be some flexibility upon adopting the San Antonio Corridor Area Plan. As for mirroring the floor plan for Levels 4 to 7, there would be further refinement, but the level below that would be Type 1 construction, so living spaces and interior layout of the units would have to be coordinated with structural columns. Ms. Raybould added that staff hoped to get clearer direction in June about Council’s preferred option for SARAP. Staff hoped that further direction would give more guidance that could then be applied to the project. Staff would ask for an easement as part of the project, but staff had not gone into detail about whether that would be the length of the setback or a lesser setback. By June, staff would have a sense of what might be requested for the maximum. Vice Chair Adcock referenced Sheet L0.01 and asked how deep the pool would be on the second-floor deck. Mr. Kim answered that the pool would be 3 to 4 feet deep. Chair Chen questioned why there had been a change in the number of parking spaces compared to the previously approved parking plan with underground parking and why the floor-to-ceiling height for the fitness center would be 9 feet. Mr. Kim replied that the cost to dewater and excavate made project construction cost infeasible. The strategy was to deliver a project quickly and to bring the sunken parking up. The finished fitness center ceiling height would probably be about 8’6”. Chair Chen stated, depending on the equipment and activities in the fitness center, an 8-foot ceiling seemed low. Chair Chen asked why the railing heights would be different on the street front from the ones along the back. Mr. Kim responded, regarding the difference in railing heights, they wanted to prioritize the visibility on San Antonio and Leghorn with the glass railing. As for the rear, it was not known what was going to happen on the Mountain View property. If in the future another project should come in with a closer proximity, there might be a different railing treatment. The applicant wanted to prioritize edges and frontage with the glass railing. The rest of it would be metal railing, except it would be solid railing the north. Vice Chair Adcock addressed the historical resource evaluation, which appeared to qualify for a listing under Category 1, and asked if the previous CEQA provided mitigation measures for demolishing the building. Ms. Raybould stated the previous CEQA provided mitigation measures for demolishing the building. The CEQA for the project would be an addendum that would streamline off the previously approved EIR. The Page 9 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 demolition of the historic building and the mitigation and overwriting considerations had been approved. Board Member Rosenberg asked if one would go through the clubroom or the stairwell to get to the roof terrace, if there were plans to rent the clubroom out for private events, and if the roof terrace would be included with a private rental. Mr. Kim responded that one would have to go through the clubroom to get to the roof terrace. It had not been decided whether the clubroom would be rented out or if it would include the roof terrace. Ms. Watson stated amenity spaces were not rented out for private events. All events would be for all residents. Chair Chen closed the public session. Board Member Jojarth liked the project overall – the materials, the setback on the corner, retail being incorporated, and the recessed courtyard on Level 3. The building height would be higher than the existing zoning, but it was similar to the surrounding buildings. Board Member Jojarth considered it to be the new Palo Alto. The project had a lot of things Board Member Jojarth wanted to see in other projects. Parking was a big topic, and there was not a good solution for pick-ups/drop-offs and E-bikes. The bicycle entrance was not convenient. Emphasizing a car-free society was an interesting idea, but there were implications in doing that. Having only 2 designated drop-off spaces on San Antonio was problematic. With the size of the development, there should be a mix of residents, to include students, older adults, families, etc., so the building would serve a wide spectrum of society, including children. The trash topic could be better thought through. Board Member Jojarth appreciated that the applicant had listened to the previous feedback of commissions, etc. Board Member Hirsch commented that the aesthetics of the building were excellent and liked the way it had been scaled down and the ground floor with a canopy. Integrating the slippage was a clever idea. It broke the scale down and gave it an urban quality. The side wall adjacent to another building was massive and would not be the best of places, but with it being a rental building, it was less problematic. With the closeness of buildings, privacy needed to be created for the façades. The building was attractive, and the selection of materials was well thought out. Some of the elements of the entry had not been addressed, such as the mail/package room, and Board Member Hirsch hoped that issue would be in the next presentation. The functions along San Antonio might need to be adjusted and reduced. The large bike storage room was terrific, but the door to enter/exit the room might need to be larger. The transportation issues were most critical, but it was being addressed by looking to the future of transportation with rideshare, etc. Board Member Hirsch stated it could not be done in the garage and had to be addressed with the San Antonio Road study. Trash should not be at the far end. If it was to be picked up on Leghorn, it should be at the Leghorn area. The ventilation of some of the apartments and borrowing light was concerning. It was standard practice to locate bedrooms and bathrooms on outer walls. The apartment on the farthest end of the notch needed to be redesigned to get more light. Board Member Hirsch suggested carrying it across to the dead wall of the unit in front of it and having a view of the pool, etc. The applicant created places for people to enjoy the building with the exercise spaces, etc. It would be nice to have a broad Page 10 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 swath of Palo Alto’s population in the building, but most would be accommodated. This project might not be family housing, but the City was getting an increasing number of townhome projects for families. Vice Chair Adcock agreed with Board Member Hirsch’s exterior design comments, but the interiors were not as equally successful. The apartments should be more family-friendly as it was important to have a larger cross-section of people. Not everyone could afford to buy a townhome. The B units were larger, but many of the As with interior bedrooms and bathrooms toward the exterior wall indicated that folks would not spend much time in the apartment. It should be a more pleasant place to live. Regarding borrowed light being to code, Vice Chair Adcock requested the applicant go beyond code and make it a more pleasant living environment. As for the 2-bedroom units, common space was more important than large bathrooms. Greenery visualized from work and living spaces enhanced well-being, which the applicant should consider in the design. Thought should be given to organizing the Leghorn side of the street for rideshare and deliveries. The GFRC and the Stucco were too pink and should be more orange and brown to achieve a terracotta look. The renderings were better than the sample colors. Board Member Rosenberg liked the building overall. The layout of the central courtyard was lovely. Board Member Rosenberg was concerned about the canyon between the building and the neighboring 8-story building but understood it was unavoidable. Thought should be given to window placement and possibly having a 15-degree angle and/or frosted glass on the lower portions and clear glass on the upper portions to mitigate that façade. The biggest issue was Level 1. The enhanced entry zone might provide a solution for drop-offs, etc. Parking spaces next to gates were problematic, and having a couple feet next to the gate would be helpful. Where the gate would be placed should be reanalyzed. Maybe both sides of the gate at the setback line should be flanked with electrical spaces instead of having one side be a long and deep electrical and the other one parking spaces. Exiting a parking spot at the gate could be problematic. Board Member Rosenberg requested that such be considered when reevaluating the turning radius of the ramp and parking layout. Board Member Rosenberg stated the trash room should be next to the elevators and discussed how that might be done. The A4 was a studio, not a 1-bedroom. Board Member Rosenberg did not like the bedrooms on the inside. Maybe A1 and A1.1 could be combined into a 2-bedroom. Board Member Rosenberg loved the courtyard, the pool area, and the pet spa. Thought might be given to accessing the pet spa from the outside, which might become a use for residents and nonresidents. Maybe it could be bigger and a retail space. The dog run on the backside would be beneficial. The fitness going out to the pool area was nice, but there might need to be more doors. Board Member Rosenberg appreciated the roofing; the setback terrace at the corner; the terracotta, although it should be more orange than pink; and the texture change. The wood in the renderings was browner than the samples, which were a little orange. Board Member Rosenberg was looking forward to the project being built. Vice Chair Adcock addressed the trash shoot and mentioned that there was a code requirement that elevators be within 200 feet of stairs and explained that it might help with the trash shoot element. Board Member Hirsch noted that there could be access to the parking garage if there was an elevator at the far end, and there could be an additional exit/entry for the building, and that might allow the trash process to work the way it was describe by the applicant. Page 11 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Board Member Rosenberg was thrilled to see that there would be retail and would be disappointed if the applicant had to have extra parking spaces because of it. Board Member Rosenberg would rather have retail and a little less parking. Chair Chen found the rendering exciting and the exterior of the building well designed with the massing break down, the use of different materials, the canopy connecting the third floor and the lobby, retail space wrapping around the corner, the glazing areas, and the co-work space. All the amenities and the landscaping would activate the street front and make it pedestrian friendly and welcoming. The trash shoot should be close to the to the elevators. Chair Chen did not like the bedrooms without windows. Parking would be a challenge for residents, and more was needed. More parking could widen tenant selection, etc. It appeared that the lobby would be used less than what was proposed. Chair Chen explained why thought should be given to the retail and lobby being switched or the co-work space and the lobby being switched. An 8-foot ceiling height for the fitness center seemed too low. Chair Chen encouraged the applicant to use the same railings for the front and back of the building. More connections between the front and back would make the entire design more cohesive. Board Member Hirsch thought some of Chair Chen’s comments would alter the entire ground floor plan, and it was concerning because the ground floor had a good arrangement. The off-center was very much part of the design with the black element moving through the façade. There was not a conflict for either pedestrians or bicyclists entering the building. Board Member Hirsch asked where there was a conflict in circulation. Chair Chen stated it was not a conflict in circulation. It was about the lobby and who would go through it. Bicyclists would use the corridor connected to the elevator. Pedestrians would use Leghorn Street as it would be the drop-off area, not San Antonio. Board Member Hirsch expressed that the drop-off area was being studied. Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch discussed the drop-off area being on either San Antonio or Leghorn. Ms. Raybould added that staff was seeking direction from Council on the preferred options, but it was not expected that there would be parking along the San Antonio frontage, so there would be no area for a loading area. Board Member Hirsch stated not having a solution for San Antonio would be a disaster and asked how it would work on a side street with potentially 150 people using rideshare. Board Member Hirsch added that the buildings along the corridor did not have that capability. Ms. Raybould voiced that was why something was required onsite, and it was not being provided onsite. Board Member Hirsch remarked that the façade had been set back and there was the possibility of having a layby area on that frontage, even though it conflicted with a with a bike passage. Putting it on a side street would not work because there were not many side streets. Planning Manager Raybould asked if there should be a curb onto the site for drop-off/pick-up. Board Member Hirsch felt there should be a curb onto the site for drop-off/pick-up, but it should be studied relative to the San Antonio frontage. The issue appeared to be a major problem. Page 12 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Vice Chair Adcock asked how the project next door was doing the drop-off. Planning Manager Raybould explained that the project next door had a K-turn. Vice Chair Adcock stated it might be necessary to reduce parking for pick-up/drop-off, delivery, etc., areas. Vice Chair Adcock explained that moving the lobby would be a successful massing design. Board Member Hirsch stated the project had to come together with the San Antonio study. Vice Chair Adcock suggested moving more of the bike parking to the San Antonio side to accommodate loading on the Leghorn side. Planning Manager Raybould provided the following summary: There should be further evaluation of the turning radius in the garage and the parking space design (part of the parking space design was partially related to the electrical), the project being designed with limited parking but not including drop-off/pick- up, and improved bicycle areas and pedestrian entrances, etc. Two board members expressed the need for more parking. Coordination with the San Antonio Road Study was required. Consideration should be given to distances from gates to parking spaces. There should be further study of the lobby for parcel pick-up/drop-off and mailboxes. The tiling material should be more orange than pink. Consideration should be given to locating the trash close to an elevator and to Leghorn and adding another elevator if the trash remained where proposed. Code might require adding another elevator; the 200-foot distance should be investigated. Relatedly, access to the garage and exterior from the second elevator should be considered. It was encouraged that the units to be designed to accommodate a larger cross-section of people. Some of the spaces with borrowed light should be reconsidered to go beyond the code to make a more pleasant environment, such as having bedroom windows. Consideration should be given making common spaces larger and having smaller bathrooms. Planning Manager Raybould asked if kid-friendly environment should be added. Board Member Rosenberg was less concerned about the building not being family-oriented since the units would be rentals. Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch agreed. Board Member Rosenberg noted that 2 board members wanted it to be more family oriented and 3 board members did not mind the way it was currently designed. Ms. Raybould asked if a cross-section of people should be considered. Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch answered that it was market driven. Vice Chair Adcock addressed the family-friendly topic and suggested refining the design to provide more family space whether for couples or kids. Board Member Jojarth added that common areas/outdoor space should be refined to provide more space whether for adults or kids. The window placements for this project and the 808 project should be coordinated. Ms. Raybould added that the window placement related to the balconies interior to the courtyard facing neighbors should be coordinated with light, air, and view considerations, and balcony placement should be refined. Page 13 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Chair Chen inquired if there were opinions for consistent balcony railings. Vice Chair Adcock was fine with 2 kinds of balconies to allow more privacy were needed. Chair Chen referenced Sheet A10.2 and suggested there be consistency in materials and railing types. Board Member Jojarth was concerned that balconies could be used for storage and preferred that the bottom part be solid and the top glass or that frosted glass be used. Board Member Hirsch supported using frosted glass. Board Member Rosenberg wanted to discourage storage on balconies. Board Member Hirsch suggested discouraging storage on balconies with lease arrangements and separating the 2 balconies by a few feet on the north end of the façade on San Antonio Road. If not separated, there should be a side panel to create privacy between the units. The applicant acknowledged that storage on balconies was discouraged with lease arrangements. Board Member Jojarth noted that a side panel could be an interesting architectural feature. Vice Chair Adcock requested the applicant consider separating the 2 balconies on the east end of San Antonio and possibly placing balconies off the bedrooms. MOTION: Chair Chen moved to continue the project to a date uncertain, seconded by Board Member Rosenberg. VOTE: Motion carried, 5-0 [The ARB took a 5-minute break] 3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Public Comment None. MOTION: Chair Chen nominated Vice Chair Adcock as Chair for the next term, seconded by Board Member Rosenberg. Vice Chair Adcock accepted the nomination. Chair Chen voiced that Vice Chair Adcock was qualified to be Chair and looked forward to handing it over to her. Board Member Rosenberg added that Vice Chair Adcock was smart, competent, and ferocious, which would serve the ARB well. Board Member Jojarth commented that it had been a pleasure of working Vice Chair Adcock on the California Avenue Activation Project, and she had a deep expertise and always provided written feedback, which was impressive, and he learned a lot from her. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Page 14 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/21/26 Chair Chen moved to Vice Chair nominations. MOTION: Vice Chair Adcock moved to nominate Board Member Rosenberg as Vice Chair, who had previously been Chair and Vice Chair and ran the ARB very effectively, seconded by Chair Chen. Board Member Rosenberg thanked Vice Chair Adcock and Chair Chen for the nomination and appreciated the faith in her. Board Member Rosenberg would be happy to serve as Vice Chair. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 16, 2026 Senior Planner Steven Switzer noted that all board members were present at the April 16, 2026 meeting, so there was no need for any abstentions from voting. MOTION: Chair Chen moved to approve the April 16, 2026 meeting minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Board Member Rosenberg asked, with Chair Chen being absent next week, if Board Member Adcock would Chair the meeting. Senior Planner Steven Switzer confirmed that Board Member Adcock would Chair the meeting next week. Virtual Public Comment None. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 11:24 a.m.