Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-16 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: January 16, 2025 Council Chambers and Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on January 16, 2025, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 AM. 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 Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer presented the Director’s Report. Anticipated for the ARB meeting on February 6, 2025, were a second hearing for a rezone and multifamily residential project on 70 Encina Avenue as well as a first hearing on minor facade changes for 164 Hamilton Avenue. A site & design and conditional use permit were recently submitted for 137 multifamily townhomes at 2100 Geng Road. The ARB will schedule two meetings per month starting in February of 2025. There have not been any ad hoc committee assignments for 2025. On Tuesday evening, the City Attorney and City Clerk sponsored a public government refresher on the Brown Act, meeting organization, and some State Legislature changes. Once the video is available, Mr. Switzer will send it to the Board. Page 2 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 Chair Rosenberg suggested a pre-ad hoc review of the Geng Road package for completeness without any judgment. Chair Rosenberg stated she had some questions about standards for minimum size and having multiple types of units on a property. Board Member Adcock will be out on February 20, 2025. To ensure the ARB has a quorum, Chair Rosenberg requested board members to email City staff to provide advance notification of any scheduled absences. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN-00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 Square Foot Lot and Redevelopment with a Proposed Four-Story, Approximately 11,050 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, was the project planner for 640 Waverley Street. Today was the second formal hearing on this Major Architectural Review application. The project proposed to replace two existing office buildings on a 5,227 square foot parcel with a new, four-story, mixed-use development with ground-floor office and four residential units above. The total floor area ratio (FAR) was 2.12:1, which was a decrease from the previously proposed 2.16:1. The parking garage would have six parking stalls for residential use. The project was designed to meet the intent of the objective standards; therefore, the project was processed as a Major Architectural Review. This project was subject to context-based design criteria, downtown design guidelines, CD-C Zone District requirements, and ARB findings. Ms. Raybould highlighted the modifications made in response to the ARB’s comments and concerns voiced at the previous hearing. The applicant provided more information and diagrams of parking procedures with the car lift in open and closed positions. Working in conjunction with the neighboring property owner on an acceptable design, the applicant will use a different material for the fourth floor level and has refined the design of the outdoor area. To allow more visibility, space was added between the slats of the privacy screening on the frontage. Details were added to show the planter design and some modifications to the planter locations. SWA (landscape architect) prepared a memorandum to explain how the plants would be maintained long term. Staff added conditions of approval for long-term plant maintenance to require implementation of the measures presented in the SWA memo. The ARB could not make a recommendation at the last hearing because the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review was not complete but CEQA review was now complete. The City in conjunction with David J. Powers & Associates prepared a 15183 streamlined review. As required under EIR, mitigation measures were implemented related to noise and vibrations to protect the neighboring properties and residents. Standard conditions of approval were incorporated for the protection of cultural resources. Page 3 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 Staff recommended that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to conditions of approval. Chair Rosenberg asked board members if they had any new disclosures since the previous hearing on this application and whether they had visited the site. Vice Chair Chen visited the site on Tuesday. Vice Chair Chen was not present for the previous hearing but she watched the video. Board Members Baltay and Hirsch visited the site yesterday and this morning. The ARB did not have any questions for staff. Ken Hayes from Hayes Group Architects made a presentation on behalf of his clients, Clarissa Shen and James Lin. Ben Waldo from SWA was present on Zoom. Mason Hayes was the project architect and designer. Mr. Hayes detailed their responses to the feedback heard from the ARB in June. The basement was for residential parking and storage. The garage lift was depicted in A01.0. The roof and planter above the entry were eliminated. A canopy would be used to protect the entry. The third floor terrace above the residential entry was scaled back. Fixed planters were added to Stair #2 at the landing of the second, third, and fourth floors. Creeping fig could be watered and maintained from the stair side. SWA provided a memo outlining landscape maintenance provisions. There would be permanent irrigation to all in- ground and raised planter areas. All private areas would have quarterly landscape maintenance. The ground level and common areas would have monthly landscape maintenance. Landscape maintenance would include replacing dead plant material, fixing irrigation systems, pruning, and weeding. A physical sample of the metal privacy screen and representative mockup were provided to the ARB. The resident- operable metal privacy screen would have 2-inch spaces between 1-inch bars. Modifications were made to the north elevation to reduce concrete wall exposure to 636 Waverley. An additional carve-out was made to the concrete wall and the positions of carve-outs were coordinated with recesses at 636 Waverley to maximize shared light and air. The project had support of the neighbors on either side of the proposed building. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Christopher Kao liked the density and landscape of 636 Waverley. Mr. Kao thought that 640 Waverley stood out in its current state and had been wondering when it would be renovated. Mr. Kao was a supporter of this project and believed it would beautify this part of Palo Alto. 2. Ms. Raybould mentioned that the ARB was sent an email of Stephen Levy’s comment. Mr. Levy lived near this project and had expressed his support. Mr. Hayes provided the following responses to Chair Rosenberg’s questions. You could not walk out the paseo to the rear parking lot because it was private property owned by the City. A gate on the rear for emergency egress had not been considered. As soon as someone activated the gate in the basement garage, the light on the bollard would turn red at the ground-floor level. There were eight spaces in the basement to accommodate six cars, ADA unloading, and EVSE. The space to the right of the car lift was to allow residents to take their trash up the car lift. The set provided to the ARB included a page that diagrams the residential trash facility in the basement. Page 4 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 Vice Chair Chen suggested consideration of the puzzle parking system to save one space for cars to maneuver in and out of the lift. Mr. Hayes provided the following answers to Vice Chair Chen’s questions. In the basement, the car lift gate goes up. The garage was for residential parking. There was no commercial parking. The garage was 18 feet deep. The contractor was working on the pricing of the proposed lift. If the cost of the lift was insurmountable, Mr. Hayes wanted flexibility to reduce the garage to 10 feet deep, which eliminated the possibility of future parking. Colors and materials were provided to the ARB. The smooth and textured concrete would be the same color. The metal privacy screening would have a dark rib finish. The canopy goes across the front area but did not extend all the way down the paseo. To accentuate the geometry of the paseo, the structure goes across a few feet. The main door to the ground-floor commercial would be parallel with the street on the right side. The supporting system for the steel plate canopy consisted of a rod holding the horizontal T section supported by the concrete wall. The material was changed on the fourth floor where there was a tree garden. The steel plate would be painted to match the M2 metal color. The steel plate would come down on the outside of the concrete curb at the bottom and most likely attach into the concrete to avoid waterproofing issues. Mr. Hayes provided the following replies to Board Member Adcock’s questions. The fourth floor vertical boards would be western red cedar tongue-in-groove outside; either tongue-in-groove or shiplap inside on the ceiling. The plate canopy depicted to the right of the garden was M2 color and of similar material to the front canopy. The bottom of the canopy on the fourth floor would be 8 feet from the finished floor. The canopy would be located at the main entrance to the fourth floor unit to provide protection at the elevator until you were under the roof. The textured architectural concrete had vertical corrugations in a 2-inch pattern modulated with smooth concrete, all cast in place. In response to Board Member Hirsch’s request for a description of how the lift would work in an emergency, Mr. Hayes explained that the lift would go down and you have to walk to the exit stair if the power went out. Mr. Hayes directed Board Member Hirsch to A306 and A308 to address his questions about the residential entry. You enter through a secured gate. It is open to the sky in that zone except for a steel plate canopy spanning the gap between the concrete wall and the building at 8 feet as shown with a thin line labeled 15 feet, and then it is open to the building beyond. The residential canopy was consistent with the commercial canopy. The main wall on the first floor would be 12 inches in from the property line. Vines would be planted on the wall facing the City parking lot. A 5-foot daylight opening was shown with a dotted line. The stair was in alignment with the concrete wall on the other side and would have creeping fig. A notch going from the third floor down to the first floor would provide fire access to the rear bedroom window. The wall with 636 Waverley goes out to 1 foot from the property line and runs the full height with the balconies cutting into it. At the fourth floor, the roof above hangs out. The second floor terrace is on top of the commercial space on the first floor. The proposed building was about 10 feet shorter than the existing building. Mr. Hayes addressed Board Member Adcock’s questions. The planter was about 3 feet tall at the ground floor. In reference to Diagram #1 of the car lift, the red light at bollard height would be visible as you come down the street from either direction. Parking protocols would be reviewed with the residents, such as not pulling into the driveway when the light is red and there was no guest parking. Page 5 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 In reply to Chair Rosenberg asking if these units were for sale or rent, Mr. Hayes answered they were condominiums. With no further questions from the Board, Chair Rosenberg closed the public portion of the meeting and opened it up to internal ARB discussion. Chair Rosenberg thought the project was stunning and the landscaping was lovely. Chair Rosenberg believed that increasing the spacing between the slats of the panels added vitality and vibrancy to the front facade of the building. Chair Rosenberg found it interesting that when residents operated their sliding panels it would seem as if the building was alive and moving. Chair Rosenberg appreciated the efforts the applicant was taking to provide parking for residents even though parking was not required. Chair Rosenberg thought it was clever to utilize the car lift for trash mobility. Chair Rosenberg believed that the modifications made since the last hearing would increase the beauty of this property. Board Member Adcock thought this was a beautiful project and a great addition to downtown. Board Member Adcock hoped the thin roof at the top would be kept as the applicant moved forward to execution of this design. Vice Chair Chen was in favor of this project. Vice Chair Chen thought the circulation problem was resolved smartly. Vice Chair Chen stated that the materials were selected carefully and were of high quality. The massing showed that the applicant took into consideration the adjacent building. Vice Chair Chen’s only concern was the color of the concrete and metal was too dark, especially next to the light color of the adjacent historic building. Vice Chair Chen suggested the applicant consider some warmer and lighter colors, and maybe add wood features to the lower levels instead of only at the top floor. Board Member Hirsch opined the darker browns were severely dark and the concentration of the amount of dark materials was excessive. Board Member Hirsch thought it was a terrific building with beautiful details. The applicant was respectful of the neighboring building. The screening on the top floor behind the garden was a nice idea but Board Member Hirsch thought if the screening material was a lighter color it might be visually nicer for the neighbors. The apartments seemed to be scaled well. Board Member Hirsch wondered if there was enough room for storage. In the next phase of detailed design, the open counter could easily have storage below. Board Member Hirsch loved the project and was anxious to see it built. Board Member Baltay fully supported the project as presented, thought it was a fabulous building and would be a wonderful addition to the town. Board Member Baltay believed the applicant provided a strong answer to every question. Board Member Baltay cautioned the owner that this architect needed to be involved throughout the construction because there were many details that would make a big difference if not executed well. Board Member Baltay moved that the ARB recommend approval as presented. Chair Rosenberg seconded the motion. Board Member Hirsch made a friendly amendment to reevaluate the darker wood and metal elements, perhaps bringing them back to an ARB ad hoc committee. Chair Rosenberg did not want to hold up this project when the majority of the ARB seemed okay with it as presented but would like all ARB members to come to an agreement if possible. To not delay the process, Ms. Raybould stated that staff strongly recommended having the director involved instead of an ad hoc committee. Discussion ensued. To reach a consensus, Board Member Baltay recommended that the architect consider lighter colors but Page 6 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 allow the architect and staff to make the final decision. Mr. Hayes mentioned that once they received the concrete samples, they would modify the darkness of the metal if they thought it was necessary. Board Member Baltay added to his motion that the ARB would like the architect to consider a lighter color at their discretion, as reviewed by staff. Chair Rosenberg seconded the amended. The motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. The ARB took a break from 9:45 AM and resumed at 9:51 AM. Study Session 3. Discussion on Criteria for Architectural Review Board Design Awards: Recognizing Built Projects (2020-2024) Historic Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer stated the project list was narrowed down since the last meeting from 79 projects to the 64 projects presented in the packet. Each board member was assigned a list of projects to review and report back on for today’s discussion. After narrowing down their assigned list, each board member would eventually select five projects they felt deserved an award. Staff recommended that today the ARB discuss the timeline, evaluation criteria and process. At the meeting on December 19, 2024, the majority of the ARB supported awarding five awards. Today, staff wanted the ARB to establish the date of the award ceremony. Chair Rosenberg pointed out there would be Board turnover in April as a result of the ARB elections. Having the award ceremony before then would be difficult. An award ceremony in May or June was more likely. Based on internal meetings for agenda forecasting, it appeared to Mr. Switzer there was availability at future ARB hearings to have this discussion come back, so it could potentially move forward before the ARB turnover. Mr. Switzer received photos of three projects from Board Member Baltay. In reply to Board Member Baltay asking if the project had to be complete to be potentially eligible for an award, Chair Rosenberg and Mr. Switzer answered yes. Board Member Baltay thought two projects in the downtown area were not complete at the last award cycle but were not on his list. Board Member Baltay saw three projects on his list were actively under construction and nothing had been done on five projects. Board Member Baltay was concerned about not having a comprehensive list of applicants. Vice Chair Chen stated that anything under construction was not a viable candidate because it was not complete, as opposed to being substantially complete enough to see the building. Mr. Switzer explained that the list had all the projects that had gone before the ARB, whether major or minor. The projects in gray on the list were carried over from the previous award cycle because they were not completed or were under construction at the time. Board Member Baltay stated that although 429 University was not complete, the building was built and it ought to be on the list as a consideration. Board Member Baltay did not believe 488 Webster was complete before the last awards and he thought it was a very nice apartment building, a good work of architecture, and it should be on the list as a consideration. Page 7 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 Board Members will make a note of which projects on their list were not completed, and staff will include those projects on the list for consideration of an award in five years. Chair Rosenberg told board members to determine if a project was substantially complete in their professional opinion. Chair Rosenberg recalled the projects in the last awards ceremony had everything completed. Mr. Switzer suggested the definition of completion be the final inspection of the project. Ms. Raybould agreed that final inspection was used in the past to determine which projects were included. Board Member Baltay believed the Board should exercise subjective judgment on whether a building was complete. For example, 429 University had not passed final inspection, the owner was in a lawsuit with the electrician, but the building had been complete for years and the Board can judge the quality of the architecture. Board Member Hirsch remarked that a project completed five years ago would be out of touch with what was recently finished. Board Member Adcock noted the Mercedes Benz project looked close to completion but landscaping was in process and there were cones and construction vehicles. On Board Member Adcock’s list of 12 projects, 2850 Bayshore was under construction and 7 or 8 projects had not started construction. Board Member Hirsch wondered if the chosen projects should be a mix of commercial and residential or to prioritize certain project types. Chair Rosenberg replied that part of the ARB discussion could be to either choose the best of commercial and best of residential or to select any project felt to be outstanding regardless of type. For the next ARB discussion on this topic, Chair Rosenberg requested board members to put together a short list of the projects they thought were viable, take a photograph or download an online photo, and present your chosen projects to the Board. Board Member Baltay stated that 620 Emerson, 555 Middlefield, and 300 Pasteur should remain on his list. Board Member Baltay wanted to add 588 Webster and 429 University to his list. Board Member Baltay had not visited 300 Pasteur, so he did not know if it was complete. Chair Rosenberg had not visited 575 or 810 Los Trancos Road but will do so shortly. Chair Rosenberg mentioned that 695 Arastradero and 3877 El Camino Real were at top of her list for an award. Additional projects remaining on her list for consideration were 4256 El Camino Real, 4115 El Camino Real, and 3705 El Camino Real. Board Member Baltay questioned if the 575 and 810 Los Trancos projects fit into the ARB awards program. Ms. Raybould noted they were not visible from the street. Chair Rosenberg thought a single family residence on Forest received an honorable mention at the last ARB awards ceremony. Board Member Hirsch recalled it being a multiple dwelling. If the Board did not think single family homes were typically within the ARB’s purview, Chair Rosenberg suggested removing them from the list. Board Member Baltay said the ARB did not evaluate the architectural merits of the single family home design but instead was advising Council on an environmental issue and was focused on the site impact, clearance to a creek and needed setback. Board Member Baltay did not think that type of advice was worthy of giving an award to and the Board concurred. Board Member Baltay recalled a hotel next to Redwoods condominiums came forward to the ARB. Staff explained that the hotel was never developed, their entitlement expired, and they never constructed. Page 8 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 Board Member Hirsch removed 650 Clark Way and 180 El Camino Real Suite E705A from his list. At 180 El Camino Real, Board Member Hirsch liked the design of Arhaus at Suite V8208 and Brilliant Earth at Suite D71. At 180 El Camino Real Suite E700A, Chair Rosenberg thought Sushi Roku was lovely and she suggested that Board Member Hirsch go back and take photos. Board Member Hirsch’s list of projects to consider for an award included Restoration Hardware at 180 El Camino Real Building B, Brilliant Earth, Sushi Roku, and Arhaus. Vice Chair Chen had three completed projects on her list: A grocery store at 2100 El Camino Real, 1250 Page Mill Road, and 3215 Porter Drive. A good potential for nomination this year was 3215 Porter Drive in Stanford Research Park. Under construction and had a good potential for an award in 2030 was 250 Cambridge Avenue. Board Member Adcock had not visited 2585 E. Bayshore Road and she needed to research the extent of work; 2850 W. Bayshore Road was under construction but she will visit to check the status. Ms. Raybould advised that the project should be saved for the 2030 awards if it was not complete. Board Member Adcock also kept the Highway 101 overpass on her list and 1700 Embarcadero Road looked close to completion. For the ARB meeting on February 20, Chair Rosenberg encouraged fellow board members to provide photos of the projects they nominate for an award and the Board will have a discussion. Staff will send out a revised short list based on today’s meeting. Staff needed one or two months to create the awards but they will try to keep it to one month, by March or April. The new Board composition could come in April. Staff suggested deferring selection of the award ceremony date until the next ARB discussion. The bylaws mention coordination of the date with City Council for proclamations, to utilize the bank of monitors in the lobby, and to add to the webpage. Staff would notify the applicants of their awards. Award recipients need time to prepare their boards for display. Chair Rosenberg wanted to know how long each step would take. Board Member Baltay said all board members needed to supply staff with photos of the projects on their list to make it clear to the ARB and the public which building was being talking about. For the February 20 or subsequent meeting, Board Member Baltay asked if staff could provide a comprehensive list of projects with all the feedback from board members and paste a photo for each project in the Excel spreadsheet, being consistent on the formatting. Board Member Baltay suggested the Board significantly narrow down the list at the February 20 meeting, and make the final decisions on the winners at the February or March meeting. Board Member Baltay thought it would take six to eight weeks for applicants to prepare the presentation information. Board Member Baltay recommended that staff coordinate with the City Clerk’s Office on when was the best time for the award ceremony, preferably May or June. Board Member Hirsch knew the previous award winners were sent a list of standards for the mounts as well as the appearance and dimensions of the boards. Mr. Switzer replied that winners would be provided that information. Board Member Baltay suggested that staff look up the description of the boards from the last award ceremony. Board Member Baltay wondered if the Board should request of staff at our next meeting to have the date of the award ceremony finalized, allowing staff two to four weeks to coordinate with the other City Page 9 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 departments on the best time. At that time, have a tentative list of how we want to see this presented. Board Member Hirsch thought the ARB could make their final decisions in one meeting. Mr. Switzer reminded the Board that last time it took five hearings based on the administrative record. Board Member Baltay thought the ARB should collectively agree to allow two more hearings to make a decision but it was great if it could be done in one. Board Member Baltay said it would be helpful if the Excel spreadsheet was vetted thoroughly by staff so the Board did not have to sort out the projects under construction. Chair Rosenberg told board members to send project photos to Mr. Switzer. Mr. Switzer will compile the list along with the information that was requested today and add the photos sent to him by the Board. For the last award ceremony, Board Member Baltay recalled Board Member Hirsch ensured that the public libraries had a place to display the award-winning plaques. Board Member Baltay thought it was very successful. Board Member Baltay suggested that staff reach out to the Library division to coordinate a schedule. Board Member Hirsch was disappointed that maybe only one Councilmember attended the last award ceremony. Board Member Hirsch viewed the ARB awards as an exercise in educating the Council on nicely designed buildings in Palo Alto, so it was important for the entire Council to attend if possible. Board Member Baltay thought it was the City Clerk’s job to communicate to the Council. Ms. Raybould responded that she would work on it. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2024 Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written. Vice Chair Chen seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Rosenberg announced she was taking part in the Council for Housing Development in Downtown Palo Alto. The first meeting was on Monday night. Chair Rosenberg will share with the ARB anything discussed at the meetings that she felt was interesting or pertinent. Board Member Hirsch mentioned there would be committee meetings and community meetings as the plans progressed for San Antonio Road and Cubberley. Board Member Hirsch wanted to attend the Cubberley meeting next week and report back to the ARB. The San Antonio Road Committee had not yet formed but Board Member Hirsch wondered if there was an interest in having an ARB member at those meetings. Claire Raybould, Interim Manager of Current Planning, stated that staff hoped within the next couple months to obtain Council’s approval of a contract for a consultant for the San Antonio Road Area Plan process. Board Member Hirsch stated that the ARB was generally focused on specific buildings but felt that the ARB should be responsible for making comments about general planning and urban design issues. Board Page 10 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/16/25 Member Hirsch thought the Board made significant comments in the discussion about El Camino Real’s district. Ms. Raybould thanked the ARB for being a valuable resource to Palo Alto. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:01 AM.