Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-01 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES: May 1, 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 May 1, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 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 Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, 2025 meeting schedules and updates. The election of Chair and Vice Chair would likely occur on July 3 or potentially later. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 3950 Fabian Way [24PLN-00263]: Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for Exterior Modifications to an Existing 32,500-Square-Foot, Two- Story Commercial Building. The Project Includes Revisions to the Facade, Site Modifications, and Demolition of a Portion on the North End of the Existing Building and Construction of a New Approximately 4,400-Square-Foot Addition to the North Side. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Change of Use to Private Education to Accommodate The Girls' Middle School. CEQA Status: Exempt in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Page 2 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Boardmember Adcock recused herself and stepped out. Vice Chair Chen disclosed having visited the site the last time but not this time. Chair Roseberg visited the site this time and had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Baltay visited the site recently and had nothing else to disclose. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site the first time had nothing to disclose. Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including the project location, project overview, existing elevations of the office building and proposals, sections, ARB 11/21/24 comments, proposed bicycle proposed parking, proposed skylights, proposed balcony connection, proposed walkways, proposed color and materials, environmental analysis and recommendations. Monique Wood, CAW Architects, provided a slide presentation including photos of the building, ARB comments from the last ARB presentation, proposed bike parking, proposed exterior colors and the floor plans. PUBLIC COMMENT Rick Hyde, property owner at 3919 Bibbits Drive, noted that the fence between his property and 3950 Fabian Way was rotted and needed replaced and suggested while the construction was going on would be the ideal time for that. Christine Fairless, head of school at the Girls’ Middle School, advised the fence would be taken into consideration as the project moved forward. Staff responded to questions posed by the Board members. Ms. Wood pointed out that the fin sticking out around the window was the yellow accent. It was confirmed that the yellow on A4.00 was the face of the overhanging canopy that would turn the corner and go back to the building. The bicycle parking was split between the front and the back. The bike parking area was completely detached from the neighbor fence. Georgia Leung, landscape architect, added the bike parking fencing was intended to be chain link and the back one would connect to the existing fence using the back sides. The front bike parking area is sloped so there would be a little retaining wall on the back side of the front bike parking area with the fence surrounding it. The height would be six feet. Sang Eun Lee, CAW Architects, explained there would be a 2-foot overhang for the trash enclosure structure as per Palo Alto code recommendation. Mr. Switzer confirmed a trash enclosure was required to be covered with a certain overhang. The proposed design was approved by Zero Waste. Ms. Wood indicated the bike parking enclosure would be a chain link fence. The fencing detail on L1.03 was for the enclosure at the west side of the campus. There was not a detail of the fencing at the front of the campus where bicycles would be parked along the street at the time. The fence at the street would be a chain link fence. There was not an elevation of that fence. It would be the same as the back bicycle parking. That fence would enclose the outdoor space adjacent to the building. There were no elevations of any of the bicycle parking fencing. Page 3 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Ms. Lee remarked the site plan originally included a trash enclosure on the south corner but because of the budget restriction and to avoid disrupting the south part of the parking lot, the accessible parking space and trash enclosure were moved to the north side of the parking lot in order to be accessible. All the site work would be concentrated on the north side. Ms. Wood added it was a grading issue that in order to get an accessible path to the trash enclosure, it would be more efficient to do it at the north end of the property. That is also where the accessible parking would be so they would share an accessible pathway to the building. Accessible parking would be maintained at the north end of the building as the main entrance would be located in that area. Ms. Wood stated there would be a striped crosswalk in the parking drive aisle at the bike parking area in the back. The sidewalk would continue all the way around to the southern and northern end of the building. Ms. Lee added there would be a gate in the middle of the west fencing. There would be a gym door from the back courtyard to enter the school through the gym door. Ms. Wood indicated the student center would be the second entrance that would be open in the morning for pick up and drop off. The janitorial staff could exit through any of the exterior doors and walk around the sidewalk around the perimeter of the building and take the crossing across the drive aisle up to the northern trash enclosure. Ms. Wood stated provided by the school indicated there was currently 6 students riding bicycles to school and historically never more than 10. Ms. Fairless did not know why more of their students did not ride bikes to school as physical activity was encouraged. About 25 to 30% were from Palo Alto and the rest dispersed across the peninsula so a lot of families did drive-in and carpool and about 25 to 30% of the students from Palo Alto biked to school. Boardmember Baltay was not entirely happy with they way bicycle parking was being done and wanted biking to be encouraged. Ms. Lee explained the kiln space would only be for teacher use. It was usually used after school or on the weekend. Ms. Lee acknowledged the location was not the best and relocating would be considered as the project developed. There was a brace frame in the location dividing the wood and metal ceramic shops. The small space was used for storage for metal shop. There was glazing in between for wood shop with the noise equipment inside. The doors on the office spaces on the second floor would have side light to let in natural light. In response to Chair Rosenberg’s suggestion to consider using small moments of color that translate across the front façade on Fabian for cohesiveness, Ms. Lee indicated there had been discussion having color on the soffit underneath the second floor but the color integration was not satisfying. Chair Rosenberg encouraged deeper exploration. Ms. Wood agreed that one of the accent colors could be used underneath the canopy. The material would all be consistent. Chair Rosenberg thought the 6-foot tall chain link fence in the front of the building was alarming, encouraged adding green striping leading to the bike path and suggested staggering the timing of parking to ensure safety of the bicyclists. Boardmember Baltay agreed the chain link fence was disturbing and encouraged moving bicycle parking closer to the entrance of the building and the trash bins to the back with a door closer to the bins. Chair Rosenberg disagreed with the idea of switching the locations of the trash bins and bike lanes. Boardmember Hirsch suggested considering more solid corner elements to the chain link fencing and coloring it black, getting the bike parking closer to the front door Page 4 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 and leaving the garbage storage where it was. Vice Chair Chen agreed with reconsidering the front bicycle location to the entry plaza, lowering the fence and reconsidering the trash circulation. Boardmember Baltay commented the students should be encouraged to enter through the front door, garbage should not be carried out the front door, putting an enclosure in front took away from the building and more design work on the front façade was needed. Chair Rosenberg did not have a strong objection to the students entering through the student center. Boardmember Hirsch expressed that the front plaza might be too much planted and not enough paving. Boardmember Baltay suggested adding some uncovered bicycle racks. Boardmember Baltay supported Chair Rosenberg’s comments regarding more exploration about the color. Boardmember Hirsch felt less inclined to make the exterior changes being suggested and that it be carried inside including the recessed seating areas within the corridor and the recesses where the students would sit. Chair Rosenberg acknowledged there might be some signage across the front to help tie things together. Vice Chair Chen agreed it would be better to carry out some pop-up colors to the existing building. Boardmember Baltay recommended appointing an ad hoc committee to keep an eye on the design. MOTION Boardmember Baltay moved to recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the project based on the ARB findings (Attachment B) and subject to conditions of approval (Attachment C) and with a condition of approval to return to an Ad Hoc to address the following items: • Front bicycle enclosure location and materials for better integration on the site. • Consider creating additional design elements or modifications to the exterior of the existing building. • Consider modifications to the hardscape at the front entry plaza to create better gathering spaces. • Improve the interior circulation to facilitate trash removal. • Work collaboratively with neighbors for fencing along residential properties. The motion was seconded by Chair Rosenberg and passed 4-0-0-1, Boardmember Adcock absent. Chair Rosenberg and Vice Chair Chen volunteered for the ad hoc committee. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Downtown Parking Garage Sign Exceptions at 528 High Street [24PLN-00268], 445 Bryant Street [24PLN-00269], and 250 Hamilton Avenue [24PLN-00270]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Architectural Review to Allow Sign Exceptions for Five Projecting (Blade) Signs Across Three Parking Garages in Downtown Palo Alto. CEQA Status: Project is Exempt from CEQA in Accordance with Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Structures) and 15311 (Accessory Structures-On Premise Signs). Zoning District: PC-4611 (Planned Community); PC-4612; and PF (Public Facilities). Page 5 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Boardmember Hirsch visited all the sites and had no disclosures. Boardmember Baltay visited all the sites, was extensively familiar with them and had no disclosures. Chair Rosenberg visited all the sites and had nothing to disclose. Vice Chair Chen visited all the sites and had no other disclosures. Boardmember Adcock visited all the sites with no disclosures. Nishita Kandikuppa, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation of the project including project locations, project overview, location 1 at 528 High Street, location 2 at 445 Bryant Street, location 3 at 250 Hamilton Avenue, location 4 at 520 Webster Street, sign frame details, LED matrix sign examples, key considerations and the recommendation. In response to questions posed by Board members, Ms. Kandikuppa stated double-faced signs would only count once. There are sign exception findings in Attachment B. The applicant team had a detail of the colors that were approved by the communications team. The color chosen was consistent with all the other wayfinding parking signage in the City. Staff would look into the font size choice. The signs were all proposed to be on the wall and the applicant was not proposing a free-standing sign. The calculations for wall sign area was included in Attachment D. The sign area is proportional to the area of the facade. The wall signs would not exceed the allowable wall area sign. Staff was asking for an exception for the projection of the sign on High Street. Stephen Evans, Chief Technology Officer for Parking Guidance Systems, provided a slide presentation of the project including introduction of his colleagues, signage locations, signage layouts and technical data, signage layouts of each sign and the font requirements, installation options and the impacts and conveniences of the signs. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. The applicant responded to the Board member’s questions about the presentation. Mr. Evans remarked that the Alma signs was not treated differently as it was assumed people were slowing down when turning into the parking garage making the font visible. The purpose of making the Civic Center sign a blade was for visibility from both directions. The size was for consistency purposes. In the parking structures where information is not seen at the street’s edge, the City opted to put the sign on the building for visibility. Mr. Evans agreed to review whether the Civic Center could be flat. Nathan Baird, Parking Manager, recalled making that sign flat impacted the visibility. The green parking signs are California MUTCD vehicle guidance signs. The blue package was recommended by a consultant years before for parking garages and lots. The ARB could request going back to green. Mr. Evans indicated everything would be located behind the City’s firewalls, communicated up to a secured cloud server and managed by a contracted third party and would be very secure from a hacking standpoint. There would be a way to turn the power off at each site if needed. Page 6 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 Mr. Evans confirmed the font size would be about 5.1 inches. Boardmember Adcock felt the 80 inches of screen sign was too big for the Civic Center. Mr. Evans explained the conduits would be visible from the exterior of the structure. There had been no discussion about concealing the conduit but it would be considered. The same mounting techniques would be used for all the signs. Mr. Baird commented the blade was only done where it enhanced and made sense for visibility. The broader context of the signs was to differentiate between parking spaces in Downtown or California Avenue and oscillate the availability of parking at other garages. Mr. Evans confirmed the signs are available in different sizes. The screens are 20 x 20 inches and put together to make the larger signs. Parkers look for parking as their destination and how many spaces are available. The intent is to have the information available early enough to accelerate the parking process. The optimum distance is typically between 100 and 200 feet. Boardmember Baltay mentioned a sign at the new garage on Sherman Avenue that he found very effective to which Boardmember Adcock agreed and added that the content was worth discussing. At 200 feet away, the driver would simply be looking for available parking, not the details. Mr. Evans agreed that the multi-level signs were not critical at the entrance site. The secondary layer of signs should display how many spaces were available on each ramp. The benefit of the matrix signs was the flexibility to change the graphic or message if it was not working. There was a signage plan installed within the garage to help circulation. Mr. Evans explained the graphics would be subjective and the message was flexible to the City’s needs and requirements. Boardmember Adcock questioned the necessity of having a 40 x 80 inch sign. Mr. Evans remarked the City opted to use the same type sign in every location and preferred to have more real estate than not enough to display messages. Chair Rosenberg had issue with the height and locations of the signs at the Alma Street garage. In response to Boardmember Hirsch requesting all of the possible messages that might be displayed, Mr. Evans explained that it was completely unlimited. Mr. Baird explained that the message was intended to advertise available parking but he liked the optionality and standardization offered. Boardmember Hirsch observed that as the priority was to indicate how many spaces were in a garage, the outside sign could potentially be smaller and less prominent on the street. Mr. Baird preferred having the signs all the same size but was open to a conversation about making them smaller as long as the objectives were met across the project. Mr. Evans added having the flexibility for conditional information would require additional space that a smaller sign would not allow for. Chair Rosenberg observed the Cowper Garage was compliant. The Florence side was flat and Bryant side a blade and did not find that concerning. Ms. Raybould stated one was a code compliant wall sign project and did not require any side exception or Architectural Review Board review. Boardmember Baltay thought all of the signs were not quite right and did not want to check one sign off. Boardmember Baltay opined the signs were intended to convey both detailed information and broad scale information. Detailed information was not suitable on a large sign high on a building. Therefore, the signs should be scaled and placed such that the information would be easily conveyed. The buildings Page 7 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 were different and using the same signs did not fit with all the buildings. The signs were too big to be easily integrated into the buildings as designed. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that functionality was important and that the primary message was available parking spaces. As excessive information was not needed, the signs could be smaller. Boardmember Adcock agreed the content and sign were not working together. There was disconnect between the content, location and size of the signs. Vice Chair Chen appreciated the intent, high technology and flexibility for the future. The size and height of the signs was not appropriate with the intended content. The mounting height should be determined by the street trees. It was important that the availability be delivered in real time. Chair Rosenberg thought the amount of information was appropriate. The information and signage intent was valuable. It would be helpful for the sign to indicate low or no parking available. The data and information on the signs should only be about parking. Having the signs be the same would be helpful for pattern recognition. The Civic Center sign should be smaller and higher. The rest of the signs needed to be lower. The only sign that should be a blade sign was the Alma one. There were no issues with Webster and Cowper, significant issues with the placement and heights of the signs on Alma and High Street. Boardmember Adcock agreed the content was essential but the sign on the street only needed to indicate the availability of parking and not where the parking was. Boardmember Baltay wanted to suggest size changes, placing the signs flat on the surface of the buildings with the exception of the one along Alma and the signs had to be down at driver eye level from 10 or 20 feet away. Chair Rosenberg supported the suggestions. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to explore having the sign against the wall and making the color neutral. It was critical to keep the information simple. Ms. Raybould recommended hearing from the applicant and from Public Works Engineering and Transportation. Staff had not evaluated them as wall signs. Wall signs were presumed to be code compliant and would not require Board level review. Mr. Evans advocated for blade signs being more visible to the parkers. The intent was to get people off the street and into a parking garage quicker. It was agreed that the size would be reviewed and options provided. Mr. Baird agreed with the direction on the size and location and agreed there may be savings on going smaller. Mr. Baird was in agreement with working with the ad hoc and with the consultants to conform within the infrastructure direction. Mr. Baird had no preference in blade versus flat and 20 inches versus 40 inches. MOTION Boardmember Baltay moved to recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the proposed projects based on findings in Attachment B and subject to conditions of approval in Attachment C and with the following conditions: Page 8 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/01/25 1. Signs shall be a maximum of 20 inches wide by 80 inches tall. 2. Signs shall be flat mounted wall signs. 3. Signs shall be maximum 12 feet in height to the top of the sign. The motion was seconded by Boardmember Adcock and passed 5-0 Chair Rosenberg made a friendly amendment to make the sign on Alma Street a blade sign. The amendment failed. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Mr. Switzer noted the 4075 El Camino project would be going before Council on May 5 at 10 PM and asked if the Board desired to have a representative attend that meeting. The ARB had recommended approval but the PTC had a differing opinion. Boardmember Baltay opined the Chair should be present. If the PTC was in disagreement with the ARB, a representative should be present. Chair Rosenberg agreed to attend by Zoom if possible. Mr. Switzer indicated the work plan list would be sent out that week. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 12 PM.