Architectural Review Board - December 19, 2024

Board favors broader El Camino rules but leaves boundaries unsettled

The Architectural Review Board's study-session feedback leaned toward a simpler, broader framework for housing development along El Camino Real, but members did not settle the future boundary of the Focus Area. No motion or vote was taken; the comments will inform potential amendments under Housing Element Program 3.4E.

The existing Focus Area between Page Mill Road and Matadero Avenue allows development of up to 4.0 floor-area ratio and 85 feet in height, with 20% of units required to be below market rate on site. Staff recommended prioritizing Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites based on factors including lot characteristics, redevelopment potential, transit access and adjacency to low-density residential properties.

Peter Baltay and David Hirsch favored a regular, corridor-wide approach with incentives or standards encouraging lot consolidation. Kendra Rosenberg initially preferred concentrating expansion near transit and avoiding isolated development sites. Other members emphasized minimum site dimensions or consolidation to provide room for access, loading, parking and services.

Members generally supported a 45-degree daylight plane beginning at 16 feet and a 10-foot rear setback next to low-density residential uses. Feedback also generally favored a 10-foot upper-story frontage stepback above 55 feet across 75% of a facade, although Yingxi Chen asked staff to consider a 65-foot streetwall. Rosenberg also urged careful limits on rooftop projections and mechanical equipment above the 85-foot height limit.

Public speakers generally supported expansion and standards intended to improve housing feasibility, including fewer height-transition constraints and more parking flexibility while retaining daylight-plane protections. Staff will combine the board's comments with Planning and Transportation Commission feedback and further evaluate site configuration, residential-edge protections, frontage, loading, open space and rooftop projections. Any boundary change would proceed through the City Council amendment process.

Members seek to put prior Avant support before council

Board members asked staff to ensure that the City Council formally receives the Architectural Review Board's earlier support for the Avant senior housing project as designed. The project remains pending before the council, and the board took no formal action on it at this meeting.

Rosenberg reported that the Planning and Transportation Commission had recommended moving the project forward with fewer units. She and Hirsch opposed reducing the project and supported reiterating the board's prior position. The commission outcome was reported secondhand, however, and the meeting record does not establish a clear vote breakdown. No motion or vote was taken by the Architectural Review Board on the request.

Staff reports 137-townhouse application and Waverly review plan

Staff reported that an application submitted the previous week proposes 137 multifamily townhouse units and seeks site and design review and a conditional use permit. The application had not yet appeared in the pending-project attachment, and the board took no action.

Staff also said 640 Waverly, which received preliminary review in June 2023, was tentatively planned for the Jan. 16, 2025 meeting in place of a previously listed item. The Jan. 2 meeting was canceled.

2025 design awards stay limited to ARB-reviewed projects

By informal consensus, the board directed the 2025 design awards process to remain limited to completed projects previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Members did not add a category for single-family homes that had not undergone board review, and no formal motion or vote was taken.

Peter Baltay advocated considering recognition for single-family residential architecture, while David Hirsch warned that adding unreviewed homes would substantially increase the workload and extend the schedule. Staff advised that the board's bylaws limit the awards to constructed projects reviewed by the board and that broader eligibility could require a bylaw revision.

Staff presented a 79-project screening list and described approximately 15 projects as carryovers from the previous cycle because they had not then been completed. Members were expected to review geographically grouped assignments, research project status, conduct site visits and return with shortlists on Jan. 16, 2025. The board discussed aiming for five awards but did not establish a firm cap or final categories.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting packet