Architectural Review Board - October 2, 2025

Canary sign program advances with lighting and wayfinding conditions

The Architectural Review Board voted 4-0 to recommend that the director approve the Canary of Palo Alto master sign program at 340 Portage Avenue. The board added conditions calling for consideration of Canary identification on directional wall signage and a lighting plan with foot-candle measurements.

The program covers nine signs for the redevelopment, including an entry directory sign, a freestanding monument sign, parking and directional signs, canopy tenant signs and address signage. Staff and the applicant will address the added conditions through the approval process.

In a separate 3-1 vote, the board recommended consideration of a future off-site monument sign near El Camino Real. That action did not approve the sign. Staff said an off-site sign is not allowed under the current sign code and would require a separate application, public notice and review of a sign-code exception.

Board member David Hirsch supported the off-site sign for wayfinding and site recognition. Vice Chair Mousam Adcock supported the main sign program but cast the sole vote against the separate recommendation, citing concerns about precedent, sign clutter and illumination near future townhomes. Lighting adjacent to residential uses may not exceed 0.5 foot-candles.

Applicant pulls 156 California Avenue item from hearing

The board did not hear or act on the proposed mixed-use development at 156 California Avenue after the applicant asked that the item be removed from the agenda. No future hearing date was provided.

The proposal calls for deconstructing the existing Mollie Stone’s grocery store and building 382 rental homes, including 76 units affordable to low-income households, along with approximately 18,720 square feet of commercial space. Plans list 277 parking spaces on one lot and 13 on another.

The city attorney said the removal would not count toward the project’s five-hearing limit. One commenter raised questions about the project’s scale, affordable-housing phasing, design, deliveries, amenities, solar installations, pets and parking. Staff said those questions would be forwarded to the assigned planner, and the board indicated that notice would be provided when the project returns for a hearing.

Primary sources

Watch the meeting on YouTube · Read the official meeting packet