CITY COUNCIL … The council has no meetings scheduled this week.

HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD … The board is scheduled to discuss its upcoming joint meeting with the City Council; Professorville design guidelines; and matters relating to the Historic Preservation ordinance. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, July 2, in the Council Conference Room at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. Read the agenda here

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD … The board plans to discuss 385 Sherman Ave., a proposal by Daniel Minkoff to demolish a one-story office building and construct a new 55,566-square-foot, three-story, mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking. The meeting is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 3, in the Council Conference Room at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave. Read the agenda here

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. Do not approve the 385 Sherman commercial building expansion. If the owner wants to upgrade his/her site with a new building, all good. But to expand to 55,000 square feet, three stories, and underground parking- no way. Another example of overdevelopment, more traffic, more employees coming to Palo Alto, and more ABAG pressures for us to build stack and pack housing structures to meet the housing to job imbalance. The city council must not approve any commercial expansions. Or, our new city council will set the new tone of our city and reverse any decisions with referendums until they retake the city this November! And not a day too late!

  3. Before you go tonight, come on over to the corner of Arastradero and El Camino (leave about 75% more travel time if you haven’t been lately) and look at that monster hotel the Council approved. Where once there was single story business block, 3500 square feet, there now is a 22,000 square foot structure that is even out of character relative to Arbor Real, and towers over everything.

    Do you want something 2.5 times bigger than THAT at 385 Sherman??

    And as you are leaving, realize also that the proposed development at Maybell would have been more massive than that right in a residential neighborhood. And then remember, it is possible to stop this, hopefully before we are San Jose Mini-Me (with San Jose’s corresponding property values). The developers are literally stealing our quality of life and property values for their own short-term gain. You can fight back.

  4. Regarding the Sherman Ave expansion, it looks like the only issue is the request to eliminate the set back on Sherman Ave. Does the project fall under current zoning requirements otherwise?

  5. Quick question —

    Why don’t we charge a large, large fee to anyone who proposes any development outside of zoning rules? Everyone thinks they deserve an exception, when none of them do. We spend a lot of time dealing with these requests.

    Why don’t we just charge for it up front? Do we already do this? If so, I’d like to see that money committed to parkland and open space apportioned by where the zoning exceptions were granted.

Leave a comment