Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-17 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: July 17, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board Member David Hirsch Absent: Board Member Mousam Adcock, Board Member Marton Jojarth Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that the Ad Hoc Committee for Item 4 consist of Chair Rosenberg and Vice Chair Chen. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that Chair and Vice Chair elections will be held in August and 762 San Antonio Road, a builder’s remedy project, will be heard. Ten meetings remain for the year. A slide was provided showing planned absences. He asked that any additional planned absences be directed to him or staff. There will be a Boards and Commissions recognition event on August 28. The required antiharassment training is due on July 30. He asked to be contacted if there are problems accessing the training portal. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [25PLN-00027]: Recommendation on the Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application for exterior storefront revisions and improvements, including a redesigned outdoor dining area, façade revisions and signage for a new tenant, Cedar & Sage (Space #1301, Building DD), 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: 07/17/25 Chair Rosenberg requested disclosures. She commented that she had visited the site previously but not recently. Vice Chair Chen stated she had visited the site. Board Member Hirsch disclosed that he had visited the site for a second time. Baker International Tamara Harrison shared slides. The project is located in Building DD, Suite 1301. The project was heard by the ARB on May 15, and today they return by request of the ARB to address pathway clearance, sustainable design to explore alternatives to gas heating, high-quality design for better integration of the proposed canopy with the building, and information related to the plaster material that will be used on the building. The proposal has been revised to address these comments. The team agrees to relocate the existing bollards closer to the curb, which will allow for 8-foot clearance around the tenant area. The existing electrical service for the building will accommodate 4 heaters for the patio space, which is not adequate, so gas heaters are still being proposed. As for the revised patio design, the existing metal canopy will be removed and the canopy will follow the façade of the building and awnings will be fixed and in place (not retractable). She explained that there will still be retractable sunshades. Regarding the plaster, hard copy samples were provided to the Board to address additional information about the plaster being provided. The parking spreadsheet has been updated and will be updated in the final plan set. Staff recommends the ARB provide direction and approve the project. LandShark Development Jason Smith voiced they had thoroughly reviewed the items requested and have a comprehensive response to them. Cedar & Sage JC Clow expressed that the 4 items had been addressed, and he hopes this will be the last meeting with the ARB so they can start construction. Arcanum Architecture Chris Canney noted that they had taken the ARB’s comments to heart and updated the design. Slides were provided showing the details of the changes made, which include the building footprint, the awning, parking, patio covering, windscreens, sunshades, plaster, seating, and bollard relocation for the pathway. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak. Chair Rosenberg requested a sample of or information on the dropdown shades. She questioned what the protection standard will be for the fireplace. She referenced a slide and asked the distance from the glass fire screen to the edge of fireplace and why the bollard will be shifted a certain direction. Arcanum Architecture Canney stated the material will be a similar color but with a 3- to 4-percent perforation. There will be a 12-inch glass windscreen encompassing the perimeter of the fireplace. The top will be open. The distance from the glass fire screen to the edge of the fire place is 6 inches. He explained why the bollard will be shifted. Chair Rosenberg remarked that she may still have concerns related to the fireplace. Arcanum Architecture Canney replied that the glass could be 18 inches. Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Vice Chair Chen inquired if there will be certain patterns for the plaster materials and if the gas heaters could be linear (not only along the edge). Arcanum Architecture Canney displayed a slide showing the patterns of the plaster materials. They could explore mounting the gas heaters on the linear. Mounting them on posts will conceal them more than hanging them from rods. The lighting and fan layouts will need to be adjusted if the heaters are hung from rods. Board Member Hirsch commented that he is concerned about raising the glass. Diffused glass may improve the character of the inside more than clear glass. He queried why have movable rather than fixed glass. Arcanum Architecture Canney explained the concept of removeable glass. Cedar & Sage Clow added that removeable glass is safe and a wow factor for guests. The glass can be tinted if desired. He explained that they will not be a hindrance to foot traffic. He strongly requested they remain. Vice Chair Chen asked if each glass panel can be individually controlled and if the dropdown shade is inside the glass and if will go to the low wall or stop at the glass level. Cedar & Sage Clow answered that each glass panel can be individually controlled. Arcanum Architecture Canney responded that the dropdown shade will be inside the glass and go to the low wall. It can be raised and lowered via remote control. Board Member Hirsch requested information on the fabric on the sloping and questioned how the plaster wall will be done, if the planters can be built-in, and if the general plantings and aesthetics of the passageway can be improved. Arcanum Architecture Canney answered that the fabric on the sloping will be fixed, below the steel, and consistent all the way through the space. He discussed the rain gutter system and how the plaster wall will be done. LandShark Jason Smith addressed built-in planters and a concern with creating an additional egress issue. Board Member Hirsch stated that there appears to be enough space for built-in planters and requested that it be considered but he wants to know if the restaurant is interested in that. He discussed the signage for Anthropologie and asked how it worked with signage being on a particular wall and if there could be plantars against the wall to lead into the entryway. LandShark Jason Smith answered that the signage requirements are being met for Stanford Shopping Center, and he did not think Simon or the tenant had issues with placement of the current Anthropologie signage. As for plantars being against the wall, the space is outside of their purview. Chair Rosenberg expressed that she thinks plantars being against the wall is beyond the scope of the project. Board Member Hirsch requested investigating plantars being against the wall. Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 LandShark Jason Smith replied that it can be discussed with Planning staff for future projects and for the shopping center in all. Chair Rosenberg remarked that the applicant had addressed all questions and concerns. She is pleased with the canopy redesign. The small planters are going to benefit the corner. She has concerns about the firepit and requested that the applicant consider a buffer. Vice Chair Chen stated she appreciates the 8-foot walkway and the redesign of the canopy. The materials meet high-quality design standards. It is reasonable to have gas heaters outside. The applicant did a great job on sustainable design. Board Member Hirsch seconded Vice Chair Chen’s comments. He suggested painting the ground utility covers to make them less observable. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C. Board Member Hirsch seconded. VOTE: Motion carries, 3-0-2 (Adcock, Jojarth absent) [The Board took a 5-minute break] Study Session 3. Study Session on Conceptual Site Layouts and Circulation for the Cubberley Master Plan at 4000 Middlefield Road. CEQA Status: Master Plan will undergo CEQA Review Assistant Director Community Services Amanda Deml discussed the project background, including milestones met. Attachment A provides a comprehensive background summary of actions to date. The item will be presented to Council on August 18. The final community meeting will be on September 17. On September 23, the item will be presented to PRC. The packet contains a full summary of community meetings 1 and 2. She highlighted the key themes and priorities gathered in the meetings, including flexibility, inclusivity, sustainability, affordability, multipurpose spaces, wellness access, greenspace, and community gathering areas. Meeting 2 showed a strong preference for partially underground parking and concerns about the above-ground parking structure, a general preference for new construction, some support for partial renovation if it results in significant cost savings, an emphasis to separate the bike and pedestrian paths for safety, an appreciation for the direct bike connection from Nelson to Middlefield, and strong support for large, flexible public gathering spaces to encourage community interaction. The community rated Concept 1 the best with Concept 3 following closely in second place. Concordia Principal Steven Bingler introduced himself. Concordia Architect Elizabeth Chen introduced herself. Three concept designs had been presented at the community meeting on June 12. A slide was furnished showing a visual representation of where the design process started. All 3 designs have an equal amount of outdoor and indoor space and parking, and all spaces will be increased from what exists currently. There are 3 options for each design, which include options for all new construction, partial renovation of 3 existing structures, and above-ground structured parking in lieu of partially underground parking. An outline of the concept design key was provided. The pavilion, theater, and Building I could possibly be renovated under the partial renovation option. Slides were furnished showing the concept designs presented in community meeting 2. Positive Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 responses for Concept 1 includes the outdoor spaces being a generous scale to the buildings and the connection to the bike routes. All concepts follow the guidelines for building height, and setbacks are more generous than the guidelines. Design 2 had received fewer positive comments from the community. Design 3 received positive community feedback as it relates to outdoor amenity space. Taking the community feedback into account, the applicant chose Concept 1 as a basis for the design but also featuring a community gathering space similar to Concept 3 and flow diagrams of Concept 2. Slides were supplied incorporating community feedback into Concept 1 as it relates to new construction and partial renovation, which she detailed. Some folks want more presence on Middlefield, so a place marker is shown for possible further development. A slide was displayed showing a possible design for the promenade. An amenities parklet could include bike racks, picnic tables, etc. Assistant Director Deml mentioned that the next steps in the Master Planning process will include collecting and analyzing the ARB’s feedback and input from the community, PRC, and PTC meetings. On September 17, Concordia will present 1 refined concept plan for additional public input, which will lead to their final presentation to the community and Council on December 8, which will include the proposed Master Plan, cost estimates, and phasing scenarios. Staff requests that the ARB provide feedback on the 3 conceptual designs, the updated designs presented by Concordia Chen, renovation versus new construction, and the triangular greenspaces at the promenade entry points and additional comments to help inform the refinement of the preferred concepts. Chair Rosenberg requested disclosures. She had visited the site. Vice Chair Chen disclosed that she had visited the site and that she is familiar with it. Board Member Hirsch commented that he had been a table host at the first study and he had visited the site numerous times during that time and recently. He had met with Concordia Bingler privately and had a recent phone conversation with him about the project. PUBLIC COMMENT Elizabeth A. stated she has been interested in Cubberley for many years, which is an incredible organization. She requested an accessible and visible book drop-off space and short-term parking. Eli R. represented North Cal Carpenters Local 405 in San Jose and urged the ARB to consider the ethics of strong labor standards, dignity, and safety in addition to the aesthetics and function of the environment. Board Member Hirsch stated that he is interested in seeing projects early in the process. The list of potential future uses of Cubberley should include the needs of the many present tenants. Use facilities are critical. It is important that Concordia and the City refine and prioritize the new list. Publicly preferred uses are critical. It is important to house activities in spaces compatible with each other and to consider future growth. It is most important to determine phasing construction based on the retention of active tenants. He wants to preserve and enhance Cubberley’s uniqueness. The phasing will effect a priority in terms of what building will be built first and how the remainder of the campus will remain for those who are there. He wants to preserve the present variety and interest in Cubberley. Landscape and landscape uses are important. He discussed priorities and worker space being a high priority to allow the facility to continue operating. Below-grade parking is reasonable, and there could also be exposed parking at the back of the site. He asked if there will be a program/design for the landscaping areas within the courtyards as the project progresses. Open spaces need to be programmed. He discussed Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 staging as there will be priorities and plans for the future. He prefers Concept 1, which he wants to elaborate on later in the meeting. Chair Rosenberg addressed the latest site plan, which is based on Concept 1 with elements from Concepts 2 and 3. She expects to address the full landscape plan at a later date. She appreciates the promenade renderings and the islands between the bike and pedestrian paths. She inquired if the applicant will promote certain areas for crossovers to prevent yak trails. Concordia Bingler responded, regarding crossovers, that one approach is to wait and see where people will travel. It is too early to determine where the crossovers should be. They intend to design the system in a modular way. The sheetrock walls or even moveable partitions could be reconfigured in many ways over the lifespan of the project. They desire an extruded concept versus generic proportions and layouts. He wants it to be as fluid and as flexible as possible. Until the design starts to take place, the uses will probably move around a little. Flexibility is key. He requested that the ARB provide feedback related to parking. Parking space could eventually be converted to program space. Chair Rosenberg voiced that she finds the mobility space to be a brilliant idea. She appreciates the existing surface parking lot remaining. The concept of putting tenants on the roof of a parking structure is brilliant. It will be safe to have a mobility hub at the end. It has not yet been determined whether traffic will be 1- or 2-way. Since there will be 3 hubs, she requested that each be named individually, that it be clearly noted with signage, and that it be on Google Maps, etc. She likes the concept of the half-height parking lot. The pedestrian circulation in the promenade is fantastic. She encouraged the applicant to consider a secondary bike path to get from the promenade to the back. The building scale and organization make sense. There may need to be a through access between the 2 buildings. The triangular element can be a showpiece and could involve public art. The landscape organization and balance of buildings and greenspace is lovely. She understands that the pool will be for public use and that it will be fenced. She requested that the fencing for the tennis courts and pool be shown on future renderings. She suggested giving consideration to relocating the pool or shifting it so it will be more cohesively engrained, as it feels disconnected. The applicant is addressing being a good neighbor. Regarding new construction versus renovation, renovation may not maintain the grandeur and history of the site. She is impressed with the overall direction. Vice Chair Chen noted that the pedestrian and bicycle circulation is thoughtful, which will be refined in a later phase. The elevated tennis court will help with vehicle circulation. If the fire lane is required by building code, there needs to be a loop with height and width meeting minimum standards. As for trash collection circulation, there should be a plan for a trash room within a building or a separate trash enclosure. Regarding renovation and new construction, she agreed with Chair Rosenberg’s comments. She inquired how it will be determined which structures will remain. Concordia Bingler responded that cost will determine which structures will remain. No one was clamoring to save the buildings because of their architectural heritage. Concordia Chen added that the 3 buildings being considered for renovation are the more substantial existing buildings, which features concrete construction of the framing and exterior walls. The other buildings are wood frame and less substantial. Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Concordia Bingler added there is a feasibility study for all the existing buildings and their expected life is about 5 more years. The larger buildings have a more substantial structure. However, there will be a delta in the cost. Their professional cost estimator suggested new construction. Vice Chair Chang noted that the indoor space will increase by 100,000 square foot, and she queried what the function will be of the increased indoor space and if the City has a vision for a larger theater or an increase in programming space. Regarding parking, there is a need for pick-up and drop-off space and space for longer term parking. If underground parking is being considered for longer term parking, she requested that thought be given to it being closer to the theater/field facilities/where larger events take place. She suggested the plans include phases of building. Concordia Bingler answered that the theater folks want more seating, which need to include the addition of a fly loft. The consultants and City agencies have indicated that the underground utilities need to be rebuilt. Working around existing structures may increase that cost. Assistant Director Deml added that renovating the theater could include making it a more useable space. There is a need to improve and add capacity. Chair Rosenberg stated the parking structure appears to be long and linear, so she expects there to be multiple egress points, which should be welcoming and with more spaces along the path rather than just concrete tunnels. Chair Rosenberg questioned what is intended for the flexible rental space and if there is a nearby bus stop. Concordia Chen answered that Cubberley rents out uses, which is the intent for the flexible rental space. It is multiuse space that tenants can use for classes, etc. It is for use in the community, and people that are already on site. There is a nearby bus stop. Chair Rosenberg asked if the bus stop will have a bump-out or extra space. Concordia Chen replied that will be the next stage for discussion. They had discussed the triangle being a good place for a transit stop. However, it needs to be further addressed with the transportation consultant. Concordia Bingler stated the bus stop could be moved a couple hundred feet and that having transit on Middlefield could be powerful. Concordia Chen added that moving the bus stop would not be taken lightly and there would be coordination with the appropriate agencies. Concordia Bingler asked for input related to a rooftop pool being to the right of the recreation wellness. Chair Rosenberg stated a rooftop pool is an interesting idea and worth considering. It is a good way to capture greenspace, but it would detach the public from the pool. A determining factor may be how many months a year the pool will be open. Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 Board Member Hirsch stated that the major diagonal would be enhanced if it was functionally more useful. For example, it could have a bus stop layby. It would be nice to have a destination building at the far end. He asked if the building shown on the side is a FOPAL building. There is a space in the back of the site that is not part of the function. Director Community Services Kristen O’Kane answered that the front of the Palo Alto Library has a space there. It is not included because that area will not be purchased from the School District. Board Member Hirsch noted that getting to that parking lot requires many left and right turns and has bad circulation. If access to the rear parking area and the connection left to right could be smoothed out to go through that area, there would be a larger piece at that end where something could be done. Concordia Bingler voiced that he loves that idea. There are constraints because the existing surface parking lot and the referenced building are not on the site. If it possible to collaborate with the School District, that is preferable. Chair Rosenberg remarked that she agrees, but she argues that landscaping could break up the gunshot view going down the promenade. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that it is important to have a bump-in to the site for a drop-off at the midpoint on Middlefield and that it may be more urban at that point. It will add more character to the promenade concept. He addressed the red line through the parking lot at whatever street it is going to be, and he commented that making the parcel at the end more useful to the center itself will make a huge difference. He is worried that what is shown will impact existing facilities, and he suggested that 1 of the drawings in the final presentation indicate that. He does not want the concept of the diagonal idea to be lost, so it has to be part of the realistic planning from the point at which someone else picks it up and decides what goes where. Concordia Bingler asked if he is addressing the phasing. Board Member Hirsch confirmed that he is referring to the phasing to understand the impact. Concordia Bingler stated they will produce those plans. Board Member Hirsch remarked that he does not know where a possible rooftop pool should be. He is concerned that what is being shown is not indicating that the pavilion and the theater will be replaced or that an alternative to that will be decided in the future. Flexibility in programming affects existing facilities and projected uses. The theater function is useful. He thinks folks desire a pool. His table indicated that the present theater is active and works. The pavilion is a great facility with a lot of flexibility. He wants to consider something like that and where it will go. He agrees with the through- traffic concept but that extra onsite parking should be considered, such as for the playing fields. It is a shame that the rectangular area in the back is not part of the site, which he hopes can be addressed. Concordia Bingler mentioned that surface parking with only air above it is inefficient use of the land. There is enough room on the parking deck so that all the tennis/pickleball courts could be on the back of the slab and an elevated athletic promenade across the front of the slab. The social output of such a promenade may be very different than the bicycle promenade and the courtyards, for example. The community likes the idea of people gathering for communication and playing, and it is an important part Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 07/17/25 of what the applicant is considering. The square footage of the tennis/pickleball courts and outdoor recreation could be doubled if extended above the parking lot they do not own. Board Member Hirsch voiced that he agrees that a raised structure could be very useful. Advantage could also be taken of the passageway through it by making a cut in the raised area for people going through to the open field, bleachers, etc. The FOPAL area could be better organized. There should be truck acces for the books/goods going in and out. Flex outdoor space could increase. Concordia Bingler remarked that it is an awkward set of spaces in a very prominent location, which deserves more attention. Chair Rosenberg voiced her agreement that it would be a beneficial element. She is excited to move forward and to hear more about phasing, landscaping, and architecture. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg announced there will be an offline Ad Hoc Committee meeting for 3265 El Camino Real after this ARB meeting. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee 4. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN-00012]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of the Proposed Final Material Selection for a 100% Affordable, Six-Story, 55-Unit Multi-Family Rental Development. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Streamlined CEQA Review. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service).