Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-19 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: December 19, 2024 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on December 19, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay, Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Planner/ARB Liaison, provided a slide presentation discussing upcoming meetings and recently submitted items and a 2024/2025 meeting schedule. Study Session 2. Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023‐2031 Housing Element. Environmental Assessment: On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). (Continued from December 5, 2024) Jean Eisberg provided a slide presentation about the El Camino Real Focus Area talking about the meeting purpose, background of the focus area and housing element program 3.4E, criteria for geographic expansion, a map of tier breakdown, building heights, revisions to development standards, existing daylight plane and height transition standard, existing front stepback standard, modified standards for the expanded area, PTC feedback from December 17 study session and questions for ARB. Page 2 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Levy, favored listening to the feedback from Ms. Eisberg and staff with regard to the setback and step back. He was happy with the geographic expansion and stated he would not go more strict than the existing focus areas, development standards, 85 feet, 4.0 FAR. He was interested in knowing the names of the developers other than the two Builder’s Remedy proposals that expressed interest. He hoped the Board would remember to make sure that the standards bring forth feasible projects. Ted O’Hanlon, development consultant working with Oxford Capital on the Creekside project, discussed how the daylight plane and height restrictions would limit more housing. He suggested a daylight plane type of model to ensure that massing and building heights would be set back from the R1 appropriately. He felt the staff report was a good direction to go in. Michael Quinn, read a letter with Palo Alto Forward’s thoughts on the expansion. The letter asked the Board to consider a 35 foot transitional height for a distance of 50 feet from low density residential uses. They supported lessening the height step back requirements and the parking mandates. Questions were asked about the gray areas on the map of geographical locations and clarification about the tier designations. Ms. Eisberg replied in this case the gray areas depicted either recently redeveloped sites, sites with parks on them or sites they did not expect to redevelop in the near or medium term. She added that the analysis was a site analysis and was not intended to stipulate zone districts so other sites may become part of this that were not expected to be redeveloped. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, clarified that some of the sites in the gray area were not included in the expanded area to avoid confusion about sites being redeveloped. She remarked the information presented was to convey those that have the highest potential for redevelopment. The focus area could be connected areas or be focused on those that have the highest likelihood of redevelopment. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the status of what is called out as original El Camino Real focus area and the possibility of including those properties. Ms. Eisberg explained the hatched area was already included in the focus area and discussions. Staff engaged in discussions with that property owner when the focus area was originally approved. Chair Rosenberg remarked they were looking to add to the existing focus area and start with tier one and then possibility tier two. The question was if there was anything from tier three or four that should be added in because it would all end up under one zoning set of rules. She asked if making adjustments to the El Camino Real focus area would affect those properties as well as the new ones they were looking to lump in. Assistant Director Armer added part of the question was whether certain areas should have different regulations based on proximity to R1 or distance from transit. Depending on location, there could be different regulations applied. She stated they would be looking for direction on which areas were recommended to be added. Page 3 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Vice Chair Chen queried what the current height standard was for the housing element sites and if they could request for a building height waiver if they were developed as housing. Ms. Eisberg replied many sites were zoned CN in which commercial and residential sites had different height limits. Sites zoned in CS had one height limit regardless of use. Those sites could apply under State Density Bonus law and request waivers from that height limit. That would also apply on sections of El Camino and projects could also utilize that program to get specific changes to development standards. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if there had been an effort to determine the distance from any one of the sites and the actual housing developments adjacent to those areas. Ms. Eisberg answered a lot of the objective standards drive the design typologies on El Camino. Ground floor residential is not permitted within the first X feet of a development and garage access, where available, needs to be from the side street or the rear if it is a corner lot. Assistant Director Armer added the map conveyed through the yellowish color which sites were in the low density, R1 zone and gave a sense of the proximity of the use category. Doing a site by site inventory of who had a garage immediately adjacent to the commercial property was more detail than they were able to do. That would be looked at when the development came forward. Boardmember Baltay asked what determined the delineation between tier two and tier three on the eastern and western sides of El Camino. Ms. Eisberg replied they were looking to see if there was a relationship to the proximity to transit in the San Antonio station area and with the commercial development in Mountain View along San Antonio. There were a number of housing opportunity sites closest to the border and some larger sites not identified as housing element opportunity sites. There were some hotels in that area. Redevelopment was a possibility. The way the parcels were drawn on the map signified condominiums. No condominiums were included in the condominiums in tiers three, two or one because they did not see those redeveloping. Boardmember Baltay questioned why the housing development in progress to the left of the eastern side of El Camino at the southern border of the City was a tier three area. He was looking for an overall vision of what they think this should be developed as. Ms. Eisberg explained tier three sites abut an R1 zoning district and were too small so they would not anticipate the ability to use an 85 foot height limit to provide 20 percent onsite affordability. She agreed to look into the specific site in question about how it ended up in tier three. Chair Rosenberg wanted to know what the existing El Camino Real focus area zoning classification was. Ms. Eisberg replied there were all different zones that apply to that area, PC zone, CS, RP, RM20 and CS. She explained how the focus area modified the base criteria. Boardmember Baltay remarked that in his experience watching developments come forth, very small lots are limiting. He suggested setting a minimum lot size and recommending allowing the standards of 4.0 FAR and 85‐foot height. Boardmember Adcock added it would be simpler if zoning changed to all of the mentioned requirements if housing was being pursued. Page 4 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Boardmember Hirsch thought they should find some regularity on the street. Boardmember Baltay commented that going south on El Camino from College Avenue all the way down to the vicinity of Matadero and should be one zone and be allowed to go to 85 feet in height. He advised looking for a consistent pattern of development. Chair Rosenberg opined the inconsistent zoning was problematic and once the area was part of the focus area they should be allowed to do A or B or a combination. She had some hesitation that making the buildings conducive to the size of the lot would encourage only people that have funds to build something that big to get into the development game. Boardmember Baltay was comfortable saying anything south of College Avenue along El Camino could be developed to the new standards with one standard being a minimum lot width. Boardmember Adcock agreed the projects that are wider had more flexibility and better for the safety of the public on the street. Vice Chair Chen concurred larger sites had more potential and solved problems with transportation, onsite amenities and trash collection. She thought there may be some sites that could be consolidated in the other direction. Boardmember Baltay agreed it could be lot area and not frontage. He did not think the members of Council and Planning Commission understood that the size and width of the lot had such a big bearing on how well it could be developed. He supported saying the entire southern stretch of El Camino from College south would be allowed to develop under these standards adding some parameters about the lot size. Chair Rosenberg highlighted on the map what she thought should be included in the focus area and what should not. Boardmember Adcock suggested simplifying it to a one‐mile radius from Caltrain. She thought they could recommend the lot size would be all the same and the proximity to R1 would influence the height. Chair Rosenberg had concern with encouraging the growth of islands. Boardmember Baltay stated he preferred putting additional layers of protection for the existing R1 facilities and say that the whole thing will be developed this way one day. He would support any consistent standard. Mr. Switzer related that differing views were welcomed. Assistant Director Armer indicated they would be working to integrate the Board’s recommendations and discussion along with Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations. Chair Rosenberg summarized that for question number one, four of the Board members would like to include all areas but described on the map the areas she would like to have included. Regarding question two, she gathered that the Board members preferred having an overarching focus area with a set of standards based on some sort of minimum. She invited discussion for question number three. Boardmember Adcock used the diagram to outline her thoughts on the daylight plane asking if there was minimum depth of the site to allow an 85 feet height. Page 5 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Boardmember Baltay agreed that should be studied. He supported keeping it a simple daylight plane. He was comfortable with sticking to the standards currently in place and over time evolving the current standards regarding allowed projections. He opined the fundamental idea ought to be a standard of a daylight plane at a certain height and angle at the backside of all the lots that ought to be triggered on adjacency to residential use. The question was if it was just R1 or any use that was actually residential. Chair Rosenberg thought the definition was the R1 zone and their point was to protect the single family homes from having an 80‐foot behemoth in their backyard. Boardmember Baltay recalled setting a minimum height of the building next to it when doing objective standards on the daylight plane. Chair Rosenberg provided that ADUs were all capped at 16 feet so the 16‐foot height limit would make sense. She was inclined to say a slightly more restrictive daylight plane, but let them build to it. Boardmember Baltay suggested landing the daylight plane at 16 foot, 45 degrees when adjacent to residential low density or R1. Chair Rosenberg was in favor of changing the daylight plane to 45 degrees at 16 feet but not having the height transitions. Ms. Eisberg clarified the focus area was an alternative to state density bonus law and an encouragement to not use the Builder's Remedy. Until January 1st, when the rules changed, applicants could submit without complying to the zoning as long as they met the 20 percent threshold for below market rate. The focus area says you can take the focus area standards but cannot use state density bonus law. That would be a way for the City to maintain the objective design standards and all the City's zoning requirements. When using the focus area standards, the specified daylight plane has to be met. Boardmember Adcock asked if that would lead them to think 60 degrees would give a better chance of using focus area requirements versus density bonus. Boardmember Baltay replied that was a calculation of what would balance the City's desire to protect low density housing more versus keep developers within this program rather than something more aggressive. He preferred the shallower daylight plan with additional encroachment allowances. He thought their advice should be the daylight plane would be the regulating mechanism. It would be up to the Council to decide whether it be 45 or 60. Chair Rosenberg clarified that the goal of the El Camino Focus Area was to incentivize people to choose to develop to Palo Alto's preferred standards rather than the state density bonus standards. She preferred being a little harsher in the residential side and doing more to protect single family homes and allowing a little bit more leniency on the front side. Boardmember Baltay supported a 10‐foot setback no the backside and asked if that was the staff recommendation and confirmed that was including those adjacent to low‐density residential. Chair Rosenberg summarized that everyone was okay with suggesting a 10‐foot setback as long as there was a 45‐degree daylight plane starting at 16 feet. She invited discussion on the front setbacks. Boardmember Baltay thought they all agreed that the setback of the building above a certain height was desirable and felt their objective standards were pushing for that kind of thing. He opined having a 20‐ Page 6 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 foot setback above 55 feet would conflict with the objective standards. He questioned what the objective standards applied to. He asked if the objective standards required some sort of step back above a certain height or just assumed a building was never above 50 feet. Ms. Eisberg explained the objective standards applied in the focus area because other requirements could not be waived out. There were a couple of objective standards with footnotes in the code saying there were exceptions because the objective standards otherwise conflicted. Boardmember Hirsch did not think it specified the height but never showed a diagram other than the lower density. Boardmember Baltay wanted to see this made part of the objective standards. He thought 20 feet as a blanket requirement would be limiting and it should be more like 5 or 10 feet to achieve their design objective. He talked about how corner elements would be treated. Boardmember Adcock described why she supported keeping it at 55 or a little bit higher. Chair Rosenberg suggested it might be as simple as saying 50 percent of the building facade needs to have X‐foot setback. Boardmember Baltay agreed but thought it should be 80 percent and the objective standards was a better place to put that kind of regulation. Chair Rosenberg summarized the Board was in agreement with a minimum of 10‐foot setback and asked if there was a percentage of the façade they would like to apply it to. Boardmember Baltay agreed a nominal percentage to allow for towers and corners in order of no more than 20 to 30 feet. He added that was dependent on the width of the property. Mr. Switzer interjected for context for the facade design on the objective standards, there would be an upper floor step back of five feet for a minimum of 80 percent of the length of the façade for structures three stories or higher. Ms. Eisberg added the current standard for the focus area was an average step back of 20 feet and [inaudible 2:00:54]. Chair Rosenberg summarized that the Board members agreed on recommending 10‐foot setbacks at the fronts above 55 feet for 75 percent of the façade. She asked how everyone felt with 85 feet overall height. Boardmember Baltay wondered why the did not include elevated mechanical screens as part of the height of a building. Boardmember Adcock opined a part of it was how far the setback was and if it was up to the street or within a certain distance from the setback, it should count toward the 85. Using the same daylight plane idea from the 85 feet, it would be 45 degrees back. Boardmember Baltay recalled stairs and elevator towers were allowed to project above the height limit to provide rooftop access. Page 7 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Mr. Switzer explained going off the definition for the purpose of height, the majority of the sites identified, excluding the low density and residential, it would be the highest point of the flat roof or the deck line of a mansard roof. It would be the highest point of any of the wall parapets or roof structure of a single family residence. Those items would not be included per the definition of height. Boardmember Baltay suggested providing feedback that to go taller be careful of what projections were allowed. Vice Chair Chen asked if they wanted a roof daylight plane applied to roof gardens. Boardmember Baltay thought it would be a good study to ask if the established daylight plane would regulate this or if they should establish a roof daylight plane starting at the edge of the parapet of the roof, another 45 degree plane, regulating secondary uses. Ms. Eisberg added in this focus area, there was an exemption for railings and parapets that were there for health and safety standards. Chair Rosenberg remarked a solid parapet wall in alignment with the building and it looked like part of the building followed 85 feet and if there was a setback railing 20 feet back would be a different exception. She liked the idea of the additional 45‐degree daylight plane for anything mechanically installed on the roof. Boardmember Baltay commented the code ought to have a basic allowance of what is allowed to project beyond the height limit and how that would be limited. He liked the idea of a daylight plane from the roof and it made sense to allow things such as elevator towers, stair towers, trellises and railings to go above it. He advised Council, staff and PTC should be made aware that some of these exceptions could be manipulated to get greater height. Chair Rosenberg referenced the setback diagram on page 84 asking what the setback was based on. Boardmember Baltay recalled the current code said the building setback would be 12 feet from the face of the curb and would not allow this projection above a certain height into that distance. He was comfortable with saying it would be 12 feet. Chair Rosenberg remarked if the property line went out to 10 feet it would impose on the property line. Boardmember Baltay related they would call it a setback. Ms. Eisberg revealed there was an existing sidewalk width requirement of 12 feet and not necessarily a setback. The setbacks up and down El Camino depend on the zoning district. Many do not have a front setback requirement but still have a minimum sidewalk width requirement. If that required some kind of easement at the ground level to create a sidewalk, that would need to happen. Boardmember Baltay inquired what the minimum height was at a sidewalk and if there was a standard for that. He assumed 10 to 12 feet. It was his thinking that it was important to preserve the 12‐foot sidewalks. Ms. Eisberg remarked the housing element sites, under state law, were allowed to build out as 100 percent residential, regardless of what an underlying zone might say or regardless of the retail preservation ordinance. That was going through as part of the housing element implementation. Other Page 8 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 standards on El Camino did not allow residential along the frontage at the ground level. Residential units could be in the rear but there would likely be something else in the front. Chair Rosenberg clarified that the Board agreed with the 12‐foot minimum sidewalk width for the first floor. Boardmember Adcock asked about street trees or planting. Chair Rosenberg explained for a sidewalk of 12 feet there would be a 4‐foot pocket for trees. Boardmember Baltay pointed out if the building comes into it up above, it's not for the tree anymore. He suggested to staff changing the diagram an, showing the building as a straight line and saying the regulation is minimum sidewalk width. Chair Rosenberg mentioned the possibility of a condition where it was less than 12 feet from edge of curb to the property line. Boardmember Baltay did not think it was good for buildings to project over the sidewalk and they should encourage it even if the code did not explicitly require it. Boardmember Adcock agreed and did not think they should infringe on the growth area of street trees. Chair Rosenberg asked what would stop a developer from making it one big extensive thing. If the area was completely covered on three sides but recessed in did not count as floor area they would be more incentivized to recess some of the entrance areas to provide planting, benches and things to create moments of relief along a street side facade. She would not want 100 feet of just glass the whole way down. Boardmember Hirsch pointed out objective standards had some discussion about insets and whatnot required. Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification whether the intent was for the two setbacks to be layered. Assistant Director Armer stated they would look into that. Boardmember Baltay advised staff should read through all the standards and ensure some of the numbers were not contradictory to what they were trying to do. Mr. Switzer clarified the objective standards provided a menu for some of the variations. Vice Chair Chen questioned if they should consider higher heights than 55. She stated starting with 65 would allow them to have one more story higher. Boardmember Baltay recalled the current height limit in Palo Alto was 50 feet and was decided on a long time ago when there was not such a tall retail environment and not as many expectations on residential. He felt 55 made sense in the expectation of fitting a five story building, which was their design intent. Vice Chair Chen countered four stories above one level of retail was not enough and eliminated the possibility to have two‐story retail down below. Boardmember Baltay stated a one‐story retail, four‐story residential was the idea. Page 9 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Chair Rosenberg added there would be three more stories above this for residential. She thought going up to 65 would be imposing and 55 feet was appropriate and fair. She wanted to make a note with staff that four out of five were comfortable with 55 feet and Vice Chair Chen preferred a 65‐foot limit. Boardmember Baltay discussed open space and that private open space consistently came up where developers felt it was too restrictive. He thought the issue needed to be addressed in the planning process whether the private open space was required or required to be met in the form of balconies rather than outdoor spaces that might meet the requirement elsewhere in the project. Ms. Eisberg explained the current focus area standard was 100 square feet and could be any combination of common or private open space, different than the typical base district standard. Balconies are not required. Boardmember Baltay had a problem with not requiring balconies. Chair Rosenberg pointed out how balconies were sporadic and requiring one for every single unit was asking a lot and suggested maybe a percentage of units having one. Mr. Switzer remarked the objective design standard was based on district. RM20 and RM30 districts minimum had a minimum of 100 square feet of area. There were dimension requirements of eight feet in width. The must accommodate 75 percent of the area. For RM40, a minimum of 80 square feet and at least 6‐foot width for 75 percent of that area. For common open space, a minimum of 200 square feet and it should accommodate a dimension of a circle with a 10‐foot diameter in the middle of that. There is a diagram in the code that identifies floors above the ground floor. Boardmember Baltay thought whether to regulate balconies was an important decision. Mr. Switzer agreed to write it down and consider it. Boardmember Adcock wanted to understand the current rules. Ms. Eisberg explained the CN‐CS‐CC district would allow for any combination of private or common open space but would require 150 square feet per unit. Residential uses within commercial districts were not required to put in private open space for residential but they can choose to do so. Chair Rosenberg summarized that the Board felt the outdoor open space was important and strongly preferred private balconies for a certain number of units and having common outdoor area and 100 square feet per unit might be an acceptable incentive. She remarked it needed discussion and thoughtfulness. She invited discussion about parking. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to push for a recommendation to accept the state’s parking description. Boardmember Adcock asked if they were requiring buildings in the half mile radius to provide one car per unit. Chair Rosenberg thought the state exempted them and Ms. Eisberg confirmed that. Vice Chair Chen questioned if there were any current regulations for the loading zone, ride share or delivery. Page 10 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Assistant Director Armer explained there were ongoing discussions with Council about what requirements there might be for accessible or electric charging parking spaces and whether those could be required even when other parking was not being provided. She did not think the loading spaces would be required. If no parking was required would override all categories except for the ongoing discussion with Council. Ms. Eisberg added the focus area did include a series of TDM measures if parking was reduced by more than half of what is typically allowed by the code. That triggers bike parking requirements for electric and cargo bikes. For the housing incentive program, there was discussion about including a drop off zone, loading zone, or TNC and they could look at that for the focus area also. Vice Chair Chen felt that was important along El Camino for traffic flow. Chair Rosenberg wanted to encourage the other boards to strongly incentivize and understand the impact a wider site would have on the overall flow of traffic on El Camino. Boardmember Hirsch recalled a bike plan was being drawn up for El Camino so both sides of the street would likely have bike zones which would restrict where loading zones would be so off‐street loading ought to be a requirement. Boardmember Adcock queried what the process would be if other adjacent properties wanted to be part of the focus area. Assistant Director Armer replied it would be a request for modification to the focus area since it was that would be adopted by Council. Mr. Switzer added it would be prudent to speak up sooner rather than later. 3. Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects (2020‐2024) Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation about the ARB Design Awards including a recommendation, Comprehensive Plan Program L6.1.1, ARB bylaws and evaluation criteria and process. Chair Rosenberg thought five was the appropriate number of awards, one project per year. She thought it was appropriate to have honorable mention if there was a need and that a single family home would be appropriate for that as the ARB did not review them. Boardmember Baltay advised being more flexible. He brought up establishing categories. He recalled in the past it was a compromise negotiation where they agreed on projects then figured out which category they went into. Boardmember Adcock queried if the descriptions were more of like what the projects were or were the actual categories. Chair Rosenberg explained there were not a tremendous amount of religious assemblies being built but a tremendous amount of office buildings. So one of 5 of the religious assemblies being built in the past five years versus one of 50 of the office buildings would be a very different sort of set of standards being compared. She suggested once they each get their 16, they evaluate them for a theme. She thought the Page 11 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 goal was making sure there was some variety in who won awards. She wanted to task the Board members with dividing up the categories after they got their 16 projects and narrowing them down. Vice Chair Chen thought the list would be shorter as the award was only for those that were completed. Mr. Switzer clarified the list of 79 projects was projects that had gone before the board and she was correct that the list would probably be significantly reduced. Whatever that number turned out to be, the qualifier in the bylaws was that the awards should go to a built or constructed project. Staff could help with each individual board member of those 16 or so projects divvied up and determine of those numbers which projects had been built and further evaluation process could continue as what the board has discussed for establishing categories or which projects may be of merit and worth awarding. He pulled up a list of the projects and they were divided up. Boardmember Baltay was in favor of Chair Rosenberg or staff arbitrarily creating a list of 16 for each Board member broken by geographic area, publish that list and send it to them. Chair Rosenberg agreed to do that. Boardmember Adcock recommended dividing it to focus on categories rather than geographically. Boardmember Baltay preferred doing it geographically. He suggested being more flexible in the quantity of them and pick an even number of projects that had to be visited and thought about. Chair Rosenberg stated she and Mr. Switzer would get a list to the Board members out in the next few days to be looking around at the projects and narrow it down for the January 16 hearing. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the longer term goal of the actual board meetings. She wanted to know if there was any public engagement planned. Chair Rosenberg answered at the pre‐hearing they discussed potential for summertime award ceremony. Mr. Switzer thought they could consider getting the public involved. He thought figuring out a solid list was the first step and then how the public could be involved. He thought January 16 was a great time to review the list. He asked them to keep in mind that the Board would have a retreat in the new year to allow for a more engaged conversation. There was potential have different hearings. Boardmember Hirsch thought involving the public would drag the process out. He asked how they would present their picks. Chair Rosenberg answered they could take photos of their short list, go online and get Google images or go back to the planning packets from the projects. Mr. Switzer added every planning entitlement had a webpage with the City so there would be a rendering of the projects. He advised sending him their visual representations of the projects before the next discussion. Boardmember Baltay suggested they establish the date they would have the ceremony at the latest January 16 and work backward from that. He wanted to see the Board be consistent when award ceremonies were issued. He thought spring was the logical time for the ceremony. Page 12 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Mr. Switzer remarked March 31 was the typical term of the ARB Board members. There were some targeted in 2025 for re‐election or term limit. Having the awards centered around what other jurisdictions or affiliations across the state and having planning and working back from a date would be worthwhile. He suggested reserving that decision for the January 16 meeting. Chair Rosenberg asked Mr. Switzer if he could prepare a timeline of working backward for when they issue the award and for preparations. Mr. Switzer answered the staff report could detail the feasibility of what it would take to accomplish all the items and inform choosing a date. Boardmember Baltay asked Chair Rosenberg to set the date, what would be involved and where it would be displayed. Chair Rosenberg wanted to account for the concept that they would be winning an award and there would be work that had to be done. She recalled that in the past it took several weeks for the visual displays to be put together and printed and she wanted to be respectful of the people that they were not throwing a crunch time on them. Boardmember Baltay disagreed with the qualifier that the project had to have been reviewed by the ARB. He suggested enlarging the program to include a category of the best single‐family residences. Chair Rosenberg questioned if they had a list of those projects. Mr. Switzer stated they could compile such a list. The Comprehensive Plan Policy was vague. The article in the bylaws was where that qualifier came in. They could investigate if changing that would be an amendment to the bylaws. Boardmember Hirsch thought it added a lot of work to what they already had to do and would extend the period of review time. Vice Chair Chen agreed they should recognize the work of residential architects but did not think it was necessary to include a residential award into the ARB and suggested separating it and considering a single‐family residence award yearly. Chair Rosenberg pointed out the large number that would be. Mr. Switzer agreed that sifting through that amount of building permits would be a large ask of staff. Chair Rosenberg agreed that residential should be included but the question was how. She suggested self‐promotion. Boardmember Adcock mentioned the variety of awards the architects could submit to and did not feel like they needed to take on that additional layer. Boardmember Hirsch seconded Boardmember Adcock’s feelings. Boardmember Baltay suggested putting a flyer out at City Hall that all architects are welcome to submit projects completed over a certain time period in certain categories. Page 13 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Mr. Switzer remarked one of the recommendations for this discussion was about how the public could participate in this process. He thought opening it up for a potential award category could be accommodated. It would require some additional work but if that was the desire of the board it could be further investigated. Boardmember Baltay opined they would be inundated with applications from architects willing to put together the presentation as long as they did not charge a fee. Boardmember Hirsch thought it should be one architect be premiered by this. Chair Rosenberg agreed one award for single‐family homes. Boardmember Adcock advised the list of requirements must include floor plans, elevations, renders and description. Mr. Switzer added that if this was something the Board wanted to consider for the January 16 meeting, having a succinct list of qualifiers for eligibility would be necessary. Chair Rosenberg was inclined to give the task of compiling the list to either Boardmember Hirch or Adcock as they did not do residential work. Boardmembers Baltay and Adcock suggested AIA awards requirements. Vice Chair Chen wondered if they should require it be owner occupied. Chair Rosenberg was of the opinion that if someone thought their project was good enough they could submit it for review. Boardmember Adcock added she did not think it was a given that they would give the award as they did not know how many submissions they would receive. She offered to volunteer to compile the list for requirements and have it ready by January 16. Boardmember Baltay added a flyer was needed to be publicized. Mr. Switzer noted that any advertisement sent out through the City would need to go through the communications team to be reviewed. Vice Chair Chen again suggested having it every year instead of every five years. Boardmember Baltay agreed with Vice Chair Chen but added that would require Council approval to expand the scope. Boardmember Adcock added doing it every year would be a huge ask. Mr. Switzer pointed out the bylaws were specific pointed toward what the awards would be reviewing. If they wanted to consider something beyond that scope, it would likely require a revision to the bylaws which could be done. Chair Rosenberg thought it was appropriate to have one award every five years and having it every year would dilute it. Page 14 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Boardmember Hirsch felt their mandate was to review certain projects presented to them. He felt adding this to the category was inappropriate because it did not involve their committee. Boardmember Adcock agreed with Boardmember Hirsch’s comments. There were other avenues to be awarded on residential projects. Chair Rosenberg agreed the focus should be maintained on ARB projects. She did not oppose including residential but did not want it to turn into the residential design awards. She thought the Board needed to maintain focus on the projects under their purview. She was still open to the idea of allowing submissions for single‐family homes. She thought having honorable mention for single‐family homes was appropriate. Boardmember Baltay corrected her saying it was a multi‐family project. Chair Rosenberg summarized that they would skip residential. They would get a list together by the end of the day so everyone would have their assignments for January 16. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2024 Boardmember Adcock requested a correction on page 48, paragraph 2 which stated, “She noted that all Board members knew Boardmember Adcock who worked at the staff office.” She wanted “worked at the staff office” corrected to “worked on the project”. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg announced there was a PTC meeting on December 11 covering 4075 El Camino regarding parking. The final decision of the PTC was to move forward but reduce the number of units. There was a lot of conversation about the legality, setbacks and daylight plane. It is in the hands of City Council. Boardmember Baltay asked if PTC got Chair Rosenberg’s input on those matters. Chair Rosenberg replied they did not. A lot of it had to do with the legality of the way the code was written when the zoning was formed at the time and what they were complying with now. The city attorney was there and answered the legality of those questions. Boardmember Baltay asked if the recommendation to reduce the number of units was relative to the legality of the zoning criteria. Chair Rosenberg answered the legality was they were allowed to build what they had. PTC recommended reducing the number of units anyway even though city attorney seemed to be advising that they were allowed to build what has been proposed. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know the additional criteria for disallowing the number of units they approved. He thought they should come out strongly and say they had examined all the aspects of closeness, daylight plane and privacy. He suggested writing a letter in support of the project going ahead as presented. Page 15 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/19/24 Chair Rosenberg agreed they should reiterate that the ARB stands firm in its previous decision to allow the project to move forward as designed and they disagree with PTC on that front. She would be be sitting on that City Council hearing and would be able to provide the Boards’ view on that. Boardmember Baltay echoed Boardmember Hirsch’s comments and strongly requested that staff make sure their input was formally requested by Council as the matter is considered. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m.