Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-20 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: March 20, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on March 20, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:34 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay (joined 8:38 am), 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 Preservation Planner/ARB Liaison, provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, 2025 meeting schedule and updates on ARB Awards, Council interviews for 3 vacancies and Boardmember Baltay leaving. Boardmember Hirsch hoped to formally invite the entire Council to the Awards. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00066]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Architectural Review of Exterior Storefront Revisions and Improvements, Including a Redesigned Outdoor Dining Area, Façade Revisions, New Signage and Updated Lighting for an Existing Restaurant with a New Tenant, Delarosa (Space #136B, Building D), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 Mr. Switzer announced Boardmember Baltay’s arrival at 8:38 PM. He noted there was an At‐Places Memo for the attachment of the draft findings of approval. Chair Rosenberg asked which of the board members had visited the site and if there were any disclosures. Boardmember Adcock had not visited the site. Vice Chair Chen had visited the site. Chair Rosenberg had visited the site a week and a half before. Boardmember Baltay visited the site the day before. Boardmember Hirsch had visited the site. Tamara Harrison, Contract Planner, provided a slide presentation about the 180 El Camino Real Stanford Shopping Center including the project location, background, project overview, colors and materials board, signage considerations, key considerations and conditions and recommended motion. Chair Rosenberg wanted to confirm that all signs were in conformance. She asked if there were any restrictions or regulations on colors specifically in Stanford Shopping Center. She also wanted to know if there were any restrictions on light refractive value of a white color. Ms. Harrison confirmed that to be correct. She explained there was some language that some of the brighter colors were limited to accent features. She described a few locations that would maintain brighter colors. She did not believe there was any restriction on the light refractive value of a white color in the master program. Boardmember Adcock wanted clarifications about the canopy. Ms. Harrison replied the canopy would be new cladding over existing canopy and new wood underside. Hannah Walbridge, applicant representing Back of the House, Inc. in Delarosa, described the concept and some of the background of their business and why they thought it would be a good fit for the center. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Chair Rosenberg wanted confirmation that orange was their typical logo color. She asked if the Chantilly lace white was the only white they considered, if they had used it in other places before and why they chose that color. Ms. Walbridge confirmed orange was their brand color. She stated they had used China white over the past 10 years. It was looking dated and they wanted something fresher and brighter. She said they could find something in the middle but the idea was to brighten it up. Boardmember Adcock had questions about the canopy. Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 Ms. Walbridge replied they wanted to line the canopy up and make the front corner proud. They had the perforated orange metal above and wanted to line it up with that. It would fall with a transition in the wall finish. It would be up to the structural engineer if it would require replacement of the whole canopy to extend the double distance on the one side. Ideally, they would just add another section, clad the whole face and the section would be welded and supported from another rod from above. It was yet to be confirmed if that was possible. Boardmember Hirsch remarked they were not showing any way in which the cable was connected through the new metal cladding at the top. He asked if it was going to be interrupted in some way. Ms. Walbridge answered they would have to anchor or weld it. Boardmember Baltay had questions about the canopy design. Ms. Walbridge confirmed they would change the extension of the canopy on both sides and the tie rods. The intention was to add another piece of trim horizontally on the right side. The detail of how that would be done was to be determined. Boardmember Hirsch questioned about drainage at the top of the canopy. He asked how they would provide heating under the awnings for the seating. He opined it would be nice to do have heaters within the umbrellas. Titan Davis, applicant with Crome Architecture, stated the intent at the entry awning canopy structure was to utilize what they could with the existing structure and grow in both directions. The tie rods would be replaced with something sleeker and the detail and connection to the main facade and penetration through that perforated panel was to be determined. The EIFS stucco trim to the right of the main entry was existing. He did not recall what was going on at the left but if it was not existing it would be new to match existing detail. There was a small EIFS trim under the awning that would be patched, repaired and painted. They existing CPK awning structure was just sloped to drain onto the mall common area walkway. There were currently post mounted gas heaters. One was in an area of easement for the Public Works Department. They would be keeping any that were outside of the easement area and relocating the one currently located in the easement area. Ms. Walbridge commented they had proposed a canopy all the way around for the whole patio but had to remove it because there was a 20‐foot easement for the utility room on the front elevation. Boardmember Baltay asked why they did not continue the awning at the front the full width of the orange panel above it and they planned to leverage the same drainage that was existing. They then proposed a canopy that could be disassembled for that 20‐foot easement. The Building Department came back with a requirement that there had to be 20 feet in between the outside of their patio and the patio for Sushi Roku. That did not allow enough seating or parking so they had to remove it. Mr. Davis stated that respected the seated layout. Vice Chair Chen asked questions about the planter and railing. Mr. Davis explained the height of the railing would be three foot eight and the planter box three feet. Boardmember Hirsch asked questions about seating. He inquired if it was possible to create a closure in order to have privacy to the dining area in the center. He asked about the railing and suggested it might Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 be possible to continue the fabric enclosure since it had to remain as thin as possible and to incorporate that into the face of the railing for more privacy. Mr. Davis said there would be seating down the mall walkway. He indicated they had tried to provide an enclosed private seating area but the limitations of the clearances and the covered square footage did not allow for a more permanent private dining setting at that side. He did not believe the existing CPK seating was in compliance with the 20‐foot clearance. He explained the railing would be sleek, modern metal powder‐coated white with a white oak cap. Ms. Walbridge added the retractable awning would cover a certain length of the side elevation. That was the last amount of square footage allowed to be covered so they did a retractable awning that would start at the corner of that elevation and go down on the side that enters the mall and come out the width of the patio. She confirmed the current CPK footprint stuck out 2 feet past the 20‐foot clearance. She noted the limited space and suggested putting a canvas drop down at that end. She said they could lever a panel the width of the patio. Boardmember Baltay wanted explanation about the 20‐foot easement, the 20‐foot clear aisle requirement and the logic behind allowing light poles and trees to project into the 8‐foot clear travel. He asked if the easement was a legal requirement or a request by the utility division for access to the facilities. He wondered why this had not applied anywhere else in the mall. He recommended the architect push back and investigate the 20‐foot clearance. He recalled having established a 12‐inch projection exception in the 8‐foot clear pathway in outdoor dining areas and was dismayed that Staff was not aware of that. Ms. Harrison explained the 20‐foot easement area was a requirement from the City’s utilities team. There was a utility room in that area that needed to be kept free and clear. Planters located at the patio area were on rollers so they could be moved. It was her understanding the 20‐foot clearance was a building code requirement for mall egress. That comment came directly from the building department. She did not believe it was provided before. The building team was adamant that the 20‐foot needed to be provided with this project. Regarding the 8‐foot pathway, there were existing trees and light poles in that pathway. Staff had a discussion regarding those items and it made more sense to leave them because taking the poles out would interfere with the tree roots and the City did not want to remove trees. Richard Wessells, applicant with Simon Property Group, stated the 20‐foot easement that ran to the face of the building was a recorded document. It was in the hands of the city attorney and had been mandated as part of an overall easement plan for the shopping center. The city owns the gas line that runs up to the building which sits within a 20‐foot required easement. The easement was mandated to keep that area free and clear in case there was ever a requirement to get into the ground for excavation. CPK had been in violation of that. It was an incorrect assumption that it had to be cleared on a daily basis. Ms. Harrison and Ms. Walbridge both understood it had to be removed daily. Mr. Davis confirmed that comments from the utility company was explicitly clear that it needed to be cleared daily. Mr. Wessells stated he would get hold of the recorded document and share it with the City to clear up the requirement for that. He stated this was the first time they had come up to the 20‐foot clearance instance in this situation. He indicated they had spent six months arguing the point and had exhausted their ability to negotiate that point with the City. He stated their discussions with the encroachment was on The Melt. They had moved the light poles out of the middle of the walkway to one foot from the Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 curbline which provided a 7‐foot clear. With this particular location with CPK where it existed to provide the 8‐foot clear they would have to remove the trees and not plant them back in front of the building. Mr. Davis added the 20‐foot clearance was straight from the California building code. It was an egress requirement and 20‐feet minimum aggregate. Boardmember Hirsch asked about access to the outside dining area. Mr. Davis understood all patrons would enter by the main entry door to be seated. Ms. Walbridge confirmed that to be correct. She said they would come in and the host would seat them and then lead them out through the side door. Boardmember Adcock queried if that was why the rope stanchions were on either end. She wondered if patrons would have to go inside to exit. Mr. Davis replied they were not both needed for egress and if they were not in favor they were open to providing more planter box structures. He stated as it currently was and if they were to build a more permanent structure patrons would have to go inside to exit. Boardmember Hirsch saw it as an issue. Mr. Davis did not see it as an issue but understood if he did. Ms. Walbridge said they could create another exit. Boardmember Adcock wanted to flag it and Ms. Walbridge agreed it would be cleaner to have another exit for the patio. Boardmember Baltay did not see many problems with the project meeting their standards. He thought the questions about the awning could be left to the applicant or brought back to them for an ad hoc committee review. He expressed strong disappointment with Staff and the applicant for not working hard regarding the regulations but he understood they wanted to get it done. He did not believe it was a fully correct interpretation of the codes. Chair Rosenberg had no major objections. She thought the support system for the canopy and the egress and finalization of the patio perimeter could both potentially be brought back for ad hoc but supported moving forward. She mentioned the orange was bright but she understood it was their color choice. She wanted to caution the Chantilly lace and advised potentially having a backup color. Boardmember Adcock supported the project and thought the canopy as drawn looked right. She did not think it needed to come back to ad hoc. Vice Chair Chen was in favor of the project and had no additional comments. Boardmember Hirsch had issue with the casualness of the planters around the front door and thought they needed work. He felt everything else was well answered and saw no reason to bring it back to ad hoc. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the project as presented seconded by Boardmember Baltay: VOTE: Motion carried 5‐0 Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 Study Session 3. Review and Provide Feedback on the Proposed California Avenue Signage Program and Outdoor Activation Approach for the Car‐Free Portion of California Avenue. Bruce Fukuji, provided a slide presentation about the signage and outdoor activation for Car‐Free California Avenue including discussion of stakeholder engagement, signage brand identity and system, elements of brand identify, signage system, wayfinding to California Avenue destinations, outdoor activation: street space zones, setbacks and activity zones, outdoor activity: layout of setback and zones and maps of outdoor activation zones. PUBLIC COMMENT Osma Thompson thought the shifty dynamic baseline of the sign looked unintentional and advised toning it down. She made suggestions regarding the font. She recommended exploring a pattern other than terrazzo that was more relevant to Palo Alto. She thought there was a striation pattern and arch in the scheme that seemed to have been lost. She thought it would be nice to include the planter that was shown in the upscale contemporary thing. She liked the general color palette. For the outdoor zones, she recommended coloring the bike lanes. She suggested putting pedestrians in the center to make more space for the storefront. She thought it would make sense to justify the access lane when it comes to the median at the intersection of Birch and Cal Ave. She felt raising the road to meet the sidewalk would help it feel more car free and inquired if there were plans to do that. She thought it felt like a parklet and recommended breaking that space up. Boardmember Adcock was curious how the directory sign was maintained. She asked if there was a plan to have more organized planting areas that did not have the shape of the leftover angled parking. She asked if there was a plan to address a cohesive lighting plan. Mr. Fukuji indicated it was their goal to help cultivate a merchant’s association and it would be under their purview to maintain a directory sign. Otherwise, the City would be responsible. He stated the next step in their process would be doing space allocation studies. They would do community outreach in April to get feedback on that. He described two options being framed up to either adapt or to reimagine the street. Part of what they were looking at were the cost and benefits of the improvements. The street was built and engineered in 2016 and it was complex to adjust. He commented they were starting to explore how to redo the lighting on the street. He described the effort as an urban design planning exercise about setting intentions around things. Vice Chair Chen mentioned the different sizes of the options of gateway signs and queried if there were any restrictions on the width of the third option. She asked if there were any thoughts about the structure of the supporting system on option one. She asked if the various sizes of the different symbols for wayfinding signs on packet page 102 indicated they would be different sizes. She wanted to know if a digital screen had been considered for the tenant name. She inquired about the scale of the terrazzo pattern. Mr. Fukuji replied there was no restriction on any of the signs. He thought that the size of the lettering was important to readability. He stated the graphic design proposal was conceptual. He thought the wayfinding signs would all be the same size. He confirmed the initial proposal was to have four directory cabinets along the street. He agreed the use of a digital screen for the tenant name could be a choice to Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 explore. He explained the consultant provided them with templates. There was a pattern template in the branding template that could be scaled. Chair Rosenberg questioned if it was the intention to paint the portion of the street on packet page 101. She asked if there would be signage on El Camino indicated the need to turn on Cambridge to find parking spaces. She wanted to know how an emergency egress vehicle would get in and out of El Camino. She pointed to a blue space on the outdoor activation map and suggested it needed to be left open. She pointed out a place on the Birch slide that she thought would possibly be a dropping off place. Mr. Fukuji answered it was a graphic design convention for a directory map. They wanted to think about how to color the pedestrian areas so they were uniquely defined. He explained they had an encroachment permit that's permitted us to put signs up that are there now that provide direction for that. They heard from Caltrans that when there is a decision for the permanent closure of the street they could have a discussion about how to replace what those signs are. According to the municipal uniform traffic control device guidance around the types of signs that could be used they did not have the same flexibility because they were the public right‐of‐way. He thought having permanent signage that did not look like construction signage would be a good idea. He indicated that all three intersections at Birch, Ash, and El Camino would have retractable bollards that facilitate emergency egress in and out. He said they were looking at the area on Birch Street as a drop‐off area. On the Ash Street side, there would be clay‐colored stamped asphalt. There would be two ADA/pickup/drop‐off spaces and a 16‐foot fire zone that had to be clear. That clear zone could be used for ADA access. Boardmember Baltay wanted to understand the scope of what the real changes were going to be. He questioned putting this level of detail and comprehensiveness on a sign program and how they justified doing the signs first. He asked if an outdoor stage or public entertainment area would be incorporated into this project. He wanted comments on the public commenter’s thoughts about the balanced feedback on the questionnaires. He asked him how he would advise the City to close on all this. Mr. Fukuji explained they were in the process of developing two design alternatives. Once those were developed, he thought it would be clear to see what would change. They had to figure out how to accommodate outdoor dining in a way that would work for businesses to advance the commercial use of the street. The next part would be introducing how to do bike lanes on the street. They would then look at how to allocate the space on the street with the two options being a series of adaptions to meet all the objectives or reimagining the whole street. That would be laid out in the next round of outreach and then they would go back to Council with those options for their direction. They started with the signs because they were able to accurately define what that could be in terms of the aesthetics, character and function. He stated they would next go through outdoor dining, bikes, activation, public improvements and then look at different users and ways to attract them. Once they get through that cycle, they would go back and look at everything they put together and see what they learned and put together a summary package of what could be the transformations. They would come back and look at the signage but they wanted to advance this enough so they could introduce into a capital improvement program. He stated there were two signs in this year’s capital improvement budget, replacing the California Avenue sign on El Camino and replacing the sign on Oregon Expressway. They would have to put a program together for the other signs and that would need to be approved as part of the budget. He remarked that looking at either alternative, an outdoor stage or public entertainment area could be incorporated into the project. He commented that the questionnaires came out numerically slightly Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 ahead. The amount of negativity around the upscale contemporary was more extreme. He said that it was clear how much it evolved based on the feedback they had received. He stated from a city policy point of view, the big step was to embrace what the district would need to function and it needed signage and an identity. There was little outright negativity about this direction so he thought it was the right way to go. Boardmember Hirsch thought it was a good decision to go with Cal Ave on the sign and opined it needed to be done big and creatively. He said there was too much information regarding wayfaring for two streets and the signage was excessive. He suggested going with the graphics they were working with. He agreed with including shop and dine in the tagline but wondered what was meant by play. He commented it could include listen to music, watch a performance, relax reading a book, dream or exercise. He said they needed to think in a broader sense of what would attract people to come to the street. He suggested different activities that could be included. Boardmember Baltay talked about redesigning the roadway and recalled the ad hoc committee wanting to curve the accessway and to look into putting in real landscaping. He liked the idea of having music performing spaces and agreed with calling it play. He agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that they were missing the sense of liveliness and spirit. He advised getting rid of the light pole on El Camino. Regarding the sign, he advised going with any one of the ones with an arching banner up in the air, big and across the whole road. Chair Rosenberg agreed with the comments of both Boardmember Hirsch and Baltay. She described ideas of activation spaces. She liked the idea of having a drop‐off area at Birch Street. She thought the lighting concept could be powerful and interesting. She thought greenery was a great idea. She was in favor of having artistic moments and though the terrazzo was memorable. She felt the graphic for the terrazzo pattern were lacking, the spotting needed to be more and the white needed to be less. She thought it would be cool to paint the street and instead of having signs everywhere they could let that pattern bleed out toward the parking lots. She was a fan of option number one regarding the wayfinding sign on El Camino. She suggested centering California Avenue and putting shop, dine, play on the left and put Palo Alto California on the right. She opined a small center fixed streetlight on the center divide would be sufficient. She thought the big arch sign would be powerful. Vice Chair Chen agreed with all the comments. She thought it would be nice to work closely with Public Arts to have some interactive art installations along the street and added it could be a wayfinding thing. She agreed there were too many signs around the adjacent street. She suggested the directory map show all the tenants names and advised considering a digital screen. She agreed with having some graphic design on the ground to lead the way. She liked both option one and three of the gateway. She thought the structure of the big arching sign needed to be developed. She agreed the California Avenue letters should be centered and using the similar terrazzo pattern base for this option. Boardmember Adcock agreed they were lacking a master plan for how the street would get developed and the sign piece was a part of that puzzle. She urged them to do the initial master planning. She felt once that was done, a number of the signs shown in the plan would not be necessary. She thought a landmark was more important than a big archway gateway. She did not favor any one of the three options but stated to choose the one that would achieve their goal of what the sign was trying to do. She said the Oregon Expressway sign and sign at the end of Cal Ave on El Camino could use a refresh. Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 She did not think directional signs were needed. She did not expect them to be social engineers because there was not an organizer to manage that but she agreed with planning for that for the future. Boardmember Hirsch supported the idea of the monument as opposed to the arch. He thought they could close the street in the middle coming in from El Camino and make the traffic work around that. He suggested they talk to people in the art community to see how they could do that as a creative piece. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2025 Boardmember Adcock requested on page 116 in the list of projects, the two projects listed at Boardmember Hirsch’s projects should have been listed as hers. Mr. Switzer acknowledged the request. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes with the adjustments requested seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried 5‐0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Mr. Switzer commented that the Director’s Report mentioned the interviews for the three candidates that would occur on Monday the 24th. There were two incumbents out of those three vacancies. He noted that this could be Boardmember Baltay’s last meeting as the April 3 meeting was cancelled and the following meeting would be on the 17th. They were working in the background for Boardmember Baltay’s years of service. Chair Rosenberg along with Boardmember Adcock, Vice Chair Chen and Boardmember Hirsch thanked Boardmember Baltay for his service. She announced they had an ad hoc following up for 164 Hamilton right after the hearing. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:38 AM