Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-17 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: October 17, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on October 17, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:43 AM. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay (late), Boardmember Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner/new ARB Liaison, announced that the public hearing for 762 San Antonio Road would be rescheduled for a later time. Chair Rosenberg discussed some minor procedural changes that were developed in the pre-hearing meeting. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Mr. Switzer gave a slide presentation providing details on the 5 upcoming meetings left in the year, a new project at 3997 Fabian Way and tentative meeting dates for the following year. He asked the Board members to reach out to staff, him or Veronica Dao if they had any upcoming planned absences. Chair Rosenberg indicated there were a few SB330/Builder's Remedy projects still in the works but there would be no more after those. SB330s would continue but Builder's Remedy's would not. Boardmember Hirsch queried if reviewers would be assigned to see those projects when they come in. Chair Rosenberg opined that once they were a few weeks out on the agenda they should start doing the ad hoc or prereview. Study Session Page 2 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC-5116) to Allow for Modifications to an Existing 121-Unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The Additions Would Include 16 Additional Assisted Living Units and 172 Square Feet of Additional Support Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@Cityofpaloalto.org Chair Rosenberg advised that this was the second time the project was brought before the Board. She asked for a raise of hand from anyone who has visited the site and all members raised their hand and there were no disclosures. Emily Kallas, Project Planner, gave a slide presentation about 4075 El Camino Ways with a project overview, project location, background/process, key considerations, landscape screening, parking and TDM plan, privacy measures for windows facing Wilkie Way, noise mitigation, neighbor comments, environmental review and recommended motion. Boardmember Baltay wanted to confirm that because this was a PC amendment that the final decision would to go City Council. Chair Rosenberg confirmed that comment to be correct. Daniel Bowman, project architect, gave a slide presentation showing images of the existing courtyard for the phase 1 renovation showing the color scheme, outlining the requests of the amendment to the existing PC, images of the proposed addition locations, existing photos, updated landscape plan, privacy screening, shadow study – March and June 21 and December 21, color scheme, 3D elevations and balcony removal. PUBLIC COMMENT Natalie Chu wanted evergreen trees for more privacy. She requested having the parking situation on Wilkie Way addressed complaining that her and her neighbors' driveways were often blocked by cars by healthcare workers and Goodwill staff. Yanfeng Wang spoke about having excessive shade cover from the Common blocking sunshine in her backyard, parking issues and noise from the AC. Kevin Ji had submitted written comments that he hoped the ARB would take into consideration. He also mentioned the engagement model with the applicant where he was invited to talk about shade and other issues. He was able to provide feedback and asked to be provided an example of what would be shown to the ARB but did not get that opportunity and was just told to show up at the ARB meeting. He remarked that the existing noise issue had not been resolved. He was concerned about parking issues. He highlighted having the setback removed would reduce the high to low density transitions which are part of the municipal code. He opposed having additional shade in his backyard. He felt the 10 foot setback with a 45 degree angle was more aggressive against the neighborhood than normal building would be. Page 3 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Mona expressed strong opposition for the Palo Alto Commons expansion. She hoped the ARB had seen an email she sent. She felt the design was a violation to municipal code 18-7202A. She had issue with the height of the building, excessive shading of her yard and privacy issue. Jayashree Divekar was in agreement with the other public commenters. She remarked that privacy was the biggest issue. Tree roots destroyed her concrete in her backyard. She mentioned the parking issues. She opposed the expansion completely. She advised that her property value would be diminishing because of this project. Charlene Kussner, WellQuest Living, advised they had met extensively with Wilkie Way neighbors. Four neighbors attended the last minute that was mostly about landscape screening and ways to rework the building to offer privacy, which they want to cooperate with. In response to the comment that they have not been responsive to email communication, she described email outreaches she had sent to the neighbors. She remarked they were taking all of the requests into consideration but not all of the neighbors were in agreement. They completed their TDM plan and had been working in cooperation with that plan incentivizing carpooling and encouraging staff to park in their garage in response to the parking issues. Noise studies had been done for the PAC building that all fell below approved levels. They were working with one resident for a solution to mitigate noise coming from the pool and spa pump. She reiterated that they want to be a good neighbor and were working to address the issues. Mr. Bowman added the reason the daylight plane was 10 feet and then 45 degrees was per municipal code, PCs pulled from the adjacent property in this instance and the adjacent property daylight plane is the 10 to 45 degrees. Boardmember Adcock was curious if the parking study included people who were not employees. Ms. Kussner responded they only had about four residents who use outside care providers so the TDM was for staff parking use. Their studies have shown they are adequately parked for residents and guest parking. Chair Rosenberg asked if they had a process or procedure in place for when someone does come as an attendant. She wanted to know if there was any sort of parking pass or something on Wilkie Way that may be explored for the neighbors to get free parking passes for their own street. Ms. Kussner explained signage has been placed in the parking lot and at the garage entry where the gate is. They have a call box there and the procedure is to actually park in the garage or in front of the garage. Ms. Kallas advised there are residential parking permit programs in some neighborhoods in Palo Alto but not on Wilkie Way. That would be a separate project through the Office of Transportation that would require Council approval. She would have to look into the exact process. Boardmember Hirsch asked for clarification of the daylight plane issues. Ms. Kallas responded the daylight planes that the neighbor was referencing was the 10 foot and 45 degree angle daylight plane that was adopted as a part of the original PC for Palo Alto Commons that had been determined to be applicable to this property under the existing zoning. The three foot rise for six foot run angle was required for new planned community projects adjacent to single family Page 4 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 residences. They took the existing planned community regulation into account while looking at the proposed addition. Boardmember Baltay questioned if the original PC approval stipulated that the building had to conform to a daylight plane or just stipulate the design of the building. His understanding was that this was different from the original building; therefore, it would be a change to the current zoning standard. He wanted to know the process for getting past the gate for parking when visiting a resident. Ms. Kallas stated in the approved plans for the Palo Alto Commons building, the plans had daylight plane diagrams that show the 10 foot and 45 degree angle. The planned community zoning typically approves the building that was built which is why the addition was a PC amendment. Female added this would be a change to the zoning designation since the site had custom regulations and the previously approved zone did not include the additional units. When staff reviewed a project like this, they look for it to be consistent with the existing buildings on site but because of the custom zoning, it does allow for the options for doing things that might not have been allowed with what the previous zoning had been or other standard zoning. Ms. Kussner explained there were signs in the parking lot with a phone number to the receptionist. As the gate is approached, there is a sign on the wall with those instruction and there is a call box to the left hand side. She confirmed that the 79 spaces were for visitors and guests as the majority of residents did not have vehicles. She commented that during the process of the Planning Commission and ARB, the parking policies had been revamped and strengthened. All of their employees had gone through a checklist on the Human Resources software where they read and agreed to a memo. It has also been handed out to the resident's families and staff. Chair Rosenberg asked if a visiting nurse or healthcare provider would park in staff or visitor parking. Ms. Kussner responded they have been alerted to park behind the gate in the garage. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there was a communication with the neighbors when they called to complain that someone was parking in front of their house and how would they deal with the cars coming into the community for the construction project. Ms. Kussner answered that they do communicate with the neighbors about the parking. They have hosted public outreach meetings. She pointed out that it is a public street and they believe a lot of the traffic pattern is from Goodwill. She commented a few spots were taken for construction activities but they have cleaned out their garage and have finished with phase one of the construction project. There is now ample parking in their garage for staff and visiting nurses/care providers. For the construction project, they plan to use the Avant parking for their staff if they have to offset any needs under the garage. The contractor has been parking a majority of the staff offsite and shuttling in construction workers. She advised the phase two scope was less invasive than phase one. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know how many staff were onsite per daily and if there was designated parking for them behind the gate. Ms. Kussner responded their heaviest shift was late morning to late afternoon with upwards of 50 staff members. She explained there were no number assignments but they had allocated a certain area for staff parking and then for residents and guests closer to the building. Page 5 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Boardmember Adcock queried if the proposed 57 was updated because of the additional 16 units. Ms. Kussner confirmed that was correct and there was a parking study completed by a third-party consultant of the City. Chair Rosenberg asked if there were any further comments by staff regarding the noise issue that had been discussed in the pre-hearing that was coming from the pool pump from the Avant that was being mitigated by piping. She understood the new heat pumps would be 53 decibels. Ms. Kallas remarked they had email and verbal conversations with code enforcement staff about the noise and it is ongoing. She confirmed the new heat pumps were 53 decibels. Boardmember Baltay recalled the source of the noise issue was onto the Palo Alto Commons building. Ms. Kallas said they reviewed the photos provided by that neighbor and determined the source of noise was from the Avant building. She added that mitigation is ongoing and other planning staff would need to review the improvement proposal in more detail. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know what existing plants were in the courtyard other than the grass. She asked if the 30 feet required by code for window privacy was window to window distance or if windows include to open space. Ms. Kussner explained there is a center grass area with some smaller trees that had been recently planted. They had to remove a tree due to illness but do not plan to remove other trees. There is a 200+ year oak on the Avant side that the owner built around to protect. She described a variety of trees, shrubs and flowering annuals to enhance the look and feel of the courtyard. They have a third-party landscape subcontractor onsite who monitors and corrects drip irrigation. Ms. Kallas remarked it would be window to window. Boardmember Baltay pointed out the code says 30 feet window to window and there is a window facing the neighbors that is 21 feet from the property line. He asked what the distance was to the nearest window. He wanted clarification that the window complied with the objective standards. He inquired if the specified tree was a native plant. Mr. Bowman answered the nearest window to that would be 20 feet past the property line so the nearest window would be 40 feet. That information was found on sheet 5.27. Ms. Kallas confirmed the window did comply with the objective standards. Ms. Kussner replied the landscape architect provided an alternative native species tree but was not sure it would be successful with the existing tree line based on the root structure and canopy. He recommended a non-native primary tree because it would be viable and well-suited to the tree line and canopy. If the neighbors want a native tree species in that area they would accommodate them. Tim Davis commented the native species would either be an oak or an incense cedar that would be very large trees that would impact the shade aspect. Introducing a native plant into that environment would not be conducive to one or the other because in order to successfully grow a native plant there would need to be a lot less water usage and they would be planting in a turf area which needs more water. Page 6 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Chair Rosenberg mentioned commentary from a neighbor about the root structure of existing trees impacting her property and wanted explanation of the difference between sweet shade versus oak and cedar root structure. Mr. Davis explained most oak trees are wide spread canopy trees and the root structure would extend to the edge of the canopy over time. The sweet shade was more narrow and upright so would not have as wide of a root spread. They would be planting the sweet shade closer to their building and not close to the property line. He added this would provide screening of the residents yards versus additional shade. Boardmember Baltay recalled the Architectural Review Board required the use of native species and wanted to know if there was some language that provided variation to that. Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Baltay's comment and wondered about the neighbors' thoughts about oaks versus sweet shades. Ms. Kallas remarked the exact language of the finding is landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's function and utilizes, to the extent practical, regional, indigenous, drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. In this case where the screening situation is sensitive, it may be appropriate for the ARB to consider what would thrive best in the setting. Ms. Kussner added they took the emails and meeting notes and landed on most residents not wanting more shade in their backyard so did not want to impact that additionally so they worked with them on where they would like to see the tree location, the height, the foliage and the spread. Boardmember Adcock asked if the email from one neighbor who preferred extension of the fencing and vine growth instead of trees had been addressed. Ms. Kallas replied that was addressed by email. The maximum fence height of seven feet per the municipal code is inclusive of any sort of trellis structure. Therefore, a tall vine that is required to be supported by the trellis structure would not be allowed per the fence code. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how they would assure the neighbors that they would maintain the plantings. Ms. Kussner stated they would be open to conditioning the project to maintain privacy and screening in perpetuity. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know how fast the specified trees would grow and if they could require them to be planted at a certain height. Ms. Kallas responded it was typical for them to require new screening landscaping to be planted at the 24-inch box size and be at least 8 feet tall at the time of final inspection. She would double check and ensure that was included in the draft conditions of approval. Female added planting trees at a larger size is possible but is not the best way in terms of the long-term health of the tree. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned a comment in one of the letters about the color scheme. Page 7 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 Chair Rosenberg thought the new updated blue was more pleasant. Boardmember Adcock appreciated the composition of the colors. Boardmember Baltay, Boardmember Hirsch and Vice Chair Chen expressed support the color selection. Chair Rosenberg encouraged the applicant to continue with the strides they were taking in terms of the parking situation. Boardmember Baltay pointed out that some of the pressure was from the underparked Goodwill store as it has a lot of retail and employee traffic. Also, a lot of ADUs and additional uses on their property increased density. He advised the neighbors have the option of petitioning City Council to get a residential permit parking program. He thought Palo Alto Commons had adequate parking but that it was not properly utilized. He wanted to see staff aggressively work through the TDM program to make it work. They needed to make the garage more welcoming. He suggested getting rid of the gate as it was a hassle and adding more signage to direct people to the garage. Chair Rosenberg thought the 18 spots of surface parking was a stopping point and that people that visited often were used to the gate. She argued that the gate was helpful being a long-term memory facility. She agreed that the garage looked imposing and the use of lighting or vine planting could make it more inviting. Boardmember Adcock suggested having a regular update of the parking policies. Chair Rosenberg wanted the Board's opinions on the sweet shade versus oak, native versus non-native. She commended the applicant on the sun shadow studies. Boardmembers Baltay and Adcock supported the tree the professional recommends. Boardmember Adcock commended the applicant on the windows. Chair Rosenberg appreciated the zigzag shape on diminishing the impact on the neighbors. Boardmember Baltay supported the level of privacy impact the applicant had achieved through compliance with their objective standards. He mentioned a section called zoning compliance on packet page 21 that he strongly supported and wanted to see the Board support the rationale for this amendment change. Chair Rosenberg was in agreement with Boardmember Baltay's comments. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved recommending approval of the proposed project as presented to City Council based on findings subject to approval, seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 19, 2024, as written, seconded by Vice Chair Chen. Page 8 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 10/17/24 VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Boardmember Baltay mentioned the upcoming City Council meeting where the ARB workplan would be presented and a memo to colleagues modifying the way cell phone tower applications are reviewed. He thought the Chair should request to have someone there to address the position of the ARB on both items. Chair Rosenberg responded that she would be in attendance for the ARB portion of the City Council meeting. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 10:15 AM