Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-07 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting MINUTES: Thursday, August 7, 2025 Council Chamber & Hybrid 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member David Hirsch, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Marton Jojarth Absent: None. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order. Roll was called and a quorum was declared. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, remaining 2025 meeting schedules and updates. ACTION ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 762 San Antonio Road [24PLN-00120]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Demolish Three Existing Commercial Buildings and Construct a Seven-Story Multi-Family Residential Building Containing 197 Rental Apartments. Thirteen Percent of the Units (26 Units) Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 60% of Area Median Income or Below. The Project is Proposed in Accordance with California Page 2 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) “Builders Remedy." A Senate Bill 330 Pre-Application was Filed on January 9, 2024. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project (SCH # 2019090070) is Being Prepared. Zoning District: (CS) AD. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@PaloAlto.gov. Chair Rosenberg asked for disclosures and who had visited the site. Boardmember Adcock visited the site the day before. Vice Chair Chen visited the site. Chair Rosenberg visited the site the day before and had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Jojarth visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site and had nothing to disclose. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation including a background/process, project location, project overview, state law constraints, site plan, rendering and streetscape, proposed materials, key considerations, CEQA status, and recommendation. Chair Rosenberg asked if the recommendation to continue to a date uncertain was for CEQA. Ms. Kallas confirmed that to be the primary reason and encouraged the Committee to provide feedback, as well. Boardmember Adcock asked for clarification on “physically preclude construction”. Claire Raybould Manager of Current Planning, explained it is anything in the design that would preclude having the proposed density. It is not cost based. It shows a project cannot be done at the proposed density while including that consideration. In a lot of legislation under density bonus law, it has been interpreted to possibly also mean the actual square footage can be used as designed . It primarily looks at units and rentability of the units. Boardmember Jojarth asked for further clarification about the limits. Ms. Raybould explained under state density bonus law, there are limits on density based on the below market rate units being provided, the income level, and the percentage of the units provided. There is less limitation under Builder’s Remedy. Maddie Selah, Deputy City Attorney, added under state density bonus law, there is a complicated formula in terms of what the applicant is entitled to ask. In this case, the project is utilizing both state density bonus law and Builder’s Remedy so the City is limited in what it can require the applicant to change about the application. The Board was encouraged to offer feedback. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the limitation. Ms. Raybould stated under the new Builder’s Remedy law the applicant is utilizing, a seven-story building is allowed if it is consistent with the most appropriate zoning for a project of that size and density and meeting the objective standards except to the extent that a waiver is requested under street density bonus law. The city cannot come back and Page 3 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 require changes to the project through conditions of approval to refine the design in a way that precludes that density. The Builder’s Remedy law does exceeding those objective standards but would open them up potentially to having certain conditions of approval be added to the project to refine the design still in a way that doesn't preclude the density. Deputy City Attorney Selah added because a project at the density proposed by this applicant would be allowed under the El Camino focus area standards, those are the objective standards being applied to the project. In the case that no set of objective standards within the City would allow the project as proposed, Builder's Remedy allows the applicant to aggregate a set of other objective standards under City standards. If and when the Board is hearing a project that falls into that category, the Board will be prepped for what the City is and is not allowed to require. Boardmember Jojarth wanted to know if the waivers being requested by the applicant are justified. Chair Rosenberg understood the applicants are allowed to have waivers and there is no limit to how many can be requested. Applicants can design the project as they see fit, request waivers, and there is no reason to deny them unless there is a significant health or safety standard. Ms. Raybould confirmed that to be right. Boardmember Jojarth asked if the waivers are approved or legal and the Board could not object. Deputy City Attorney Selah replied state law constrains what the City is allowed to require. If any of those waivers would run contrary to state or federal law or pose a significant health or safety threat, the City would have grounds to deny the waivers. There is no reason to believe that to be the case at this time. Boardmember Hirsch queried if planning intended to use the focus area details for the density, etc. regulations being proposed. Ms. Kallas answered this is not a rezoning application. State law says if anywhere in the City allows that density, height, or lot coverage, those are the objective design standards and development standards that can be applied when reviewing the project. Because the project is on the San Antonio Road Corridor and the San Antonio Road Area Plan is being developed, what will be allowed in the future on this corridor is under discussion and consideration and what is currently allowed may not be what is allowed in the future. Boardmember Hirsch questioned how that gets applied to the rest of the street if other projects are in process. Ms. Kallas explained there are a few Builder’s Remedy applications in the city and because we have an adopted housing element, no new Builder’s Remedy applications can be submitted. There are other processes that also allow for discretionary review of projects that exceed the allowable development standards. Matt Hengehold, Hengehold Trucks provided a background of the company and the project being proposed. Gary Johnson, Acclaim Companies joined in to share the vision, design, and community benefits of the proposed project. Mark Chris Lee, Architect at LEED AP, provided a slide presentation demonstrating a site plan, design, floor plan, elevation views, colors and materials, façade articulations and landscape design for the proposed project. Manuela King, Principal at RHHA Architects, joined the presentation describing the streetscape and landscape plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS Winter Dellenbach wanted clarification on how many inclusionary zoning units are being required and asked where the Feasibility Analysis and findings are. Page 4 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 Christopher Brosnan did not support the artificial turf dog run area and stated the project needs trees around it. Palm trees are not appropriate to the area. There should be a way to walk through the property as a pedestrian and public access to the rooftop. Mr. Brosnan opined the project is too big and mentioned issues with groundwater. Mr. Johnson responded the project provides 26 below market rate units in line with AB 1893. It is understood that that massing and height are an issue that need to be resolved while also balancing financial feasibility of the project. Palm trees will not be planted. The tree canopy will be replaced or increased. There is incentive to keep the artificial turf on the dog run clean and smell free. Groundwater level is at five to six feet below grade so parking will be put on grade rather than going subterranean. which also assists in the financial feasibility of the project. Ms. King explained the reasoning for using artificial turf on the dog run and plans to mitigate the smell. There will be trees in all areas that allow room for them. The only palms being proposed are some dwarf palms around the swimming pool in pots. Chair Rosenberg questioned if there capacity for a sprinkler system for the artificial turf. Ms. King replied that could be done. Boardmember Adcock had questions about the two-level parking area. Mr. Johnson explained in order to avoid disrupting traffic flow along San Antonio Road, access on Leghorn Street is being used. There are trash chutes and compactors in the garage that will be brought out three or four times a week for trash pickup along Leghorn Street. There is coordination with Mountain View to have trash picked up since a portion of Leghorn Street is in front of the project is in Mountain View. Parking will be assigned. There will be guest parking. Chair Rosenberg queried if there are any requirements for dual egress in case of fire. Boardmember Adcock stated there is not. Mr. Lee added fire and building code only requires exiting for people. Boardmember Adcock wanted clarification as to why the landscaping requirement on the roof could not be met. Ms. King replied the waiver being requested is for the seventh floor only. It does not meet the 20 percent planting area because it is a small terrace and space is needed for seating and for people to see the views from the seventh floor. Boardmember Adcock asked why waivers are being requested for things that seem accomplishable. Ms. King stated it is possible to increase the size of the planter on the seventh floor. Mr. Lee added irrigation on the roof provided some constraint. More could be done on the podium level on the roof. Providing more landscape could be looked into. Mr. Johnson said most units have their own balcony. There is a pool, spa, and a lot of outdoor area. Boardmember Adcock opined the waiver could be thought through a little more. Chair Rosenberg asked if only two oak trees are being removed and if there is a certain amount of planting being replaced. Ms. King responded only two oak trees are being removed. The design objective criteria for the square footage of landscape required is being met with the exception of the seventh floor terrace. The oak trees are existing along the street and there will be additional sidewalk and planting added. The street will be more landscaped than it currently is. Vice Chair Chen inquired if the amenity space of the building will be open to the public. Mr. Johnson stated it will be only used by the tenants of the building. Vice Chair Chen had questions about a corridor on the third floor. Mr. Lee answered it is one of the objective design standards to provide a step back on Page 5 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 the podium to the upper level. Vice Chair Chen asked about the fitness center. Mr. Lee stated it is a double high space. There has not yet been work with the interior designer to fine tune the layout. If a mezzanine level is wanted, a spiral stair might be added. Vice Chair Chen queried if the roof area on the seventh floor would be accessible to the public. Mr. Johnson stated no roof area would be accessible to the public but would potentially be accessible to the community. Mr. Lee added it is not a roof deck but just roof area. Vice Chair Chen observed a couple more units could fit there. Chair Rosenberg asked if anything precluded landscaping those areas. Mr. Lee answered it could be landscaped or converted to a roof deck. That is not currently included in the amenity program but could fine tune it to see if the roof area could be better utilized. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know what is beyond the balcony. Mr. Lee said there was still work to be done with the landscape architect on that. Boardmember Adcock observed that edge protection should be considered. Mr. Johnson agreed. Vice Chair Chen had questions about the upper floor step back. Ms. Raybould stated it would need to comply with the objective standard or request a waiver from whatever the objective standard is as outlined and modified in the focus area standard. If the focus area does reference the neighboring building, that would also apply and a waiver would be needed. It is a 10-foot step back. There was a recent amendment that was not updated in the online code. It was previously a 6-foot setback. Vice Chair Chen stated packet page 45, 18.25.050B1 says "not only on the primary building frontage but also the facade facing the adjacent building." Ms. Raybould agreed to further evaluate that. Vice Chair Chen wanted clarification on the setback on the upper level facing Leghorn. Mr. Lee used a slide to describe the setback area. Ms. Raybould said the step back is not 6 feet which is the reason for the waiver. Mr. Lee added the façade was designed to be more dynamic. That is why the seventh story step back was not counted. Vice Chair Chen wanted to understand the calculation about the loss of 1800 square feet on packet page 36. Mr. Lee stated it was 70 percent minus 40 percent that was provided. Boardmember Adcock said it was aggregate of San Antonio and Leghorn. Boardmember Hirsch wondered if it would be possible to create a landscaped connection to the back of the building. Mr. Lee used a slide to describe the clubhouse design. The intention is to be able to go through the courtyard into either the south or north side. It was agreed to look at creating an access corridor on the north side of the building to get to the back side of the building. Boardmember Adcock suggested thinking through how the stairs and elevators come together on the front lobby and the Leghorn entrance. Mr. Johnson agreed to look at that. Chair Rosenberg opined any time there is a staircase, there should be an elevator and vice versa. Mr. Johnson agreed to look at the complete circulation of the building. Boardmember Jojarth inquired to what extent could the applicants be encouraged to not use waivers and if the waivers result in losing apartment space, take away some things not related to density. Ms. Kallas noted that the current plans do not have any ground floor residential units. If units were to be relocated to the ground floor, there is a lot of objective design standards that do not apply to the project that would. It is possible that could create different issues or needs for other waivers. Boardmember Jojarth suggested making the leasing office and work from home office single story to gain square footage. Deputy City Attorney Selah said the Board may encourage or ask the applicant to consider those suggestions. In terms of when the City is required to grant a requested waiver, it is not just square footage that has to be considered. The City is not allowed to require a redesign that would strip the Page 6 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 amenities from the project. Boardmember Jojarth opined that the waivers being requested did not provide a lot of value. It would be easier to support the project if that could be addressed. Mr. Johnson agreed to try to reduce as many waivers as possible. Boardmember Jojarth asked how square footage would be lost by not having a balcony. Mr. Lee explained the intent was for that to be taken out. Ms. Raybould noted Staff is evaluating whether putting parking, loading, and utilities on the Leghorn or the San Antonio frontage. Boardmember Jojarth thought getting rid of one entrance by investing a little square footage would be a plus. Boardmember Adcock and Chair Rosenberg disagreed with Boardmember Jojarth's comment. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how deliveries get distributed. Mr. Lee answered there is a loading area at the Leghorn Street. Mr. Johnson added a fridge has been allocated toward food deliveries in the lobby. The tenant could meet the food deliverer in the lobby when called. Having food deliveries brought into the corridors is discouraged. Vice Chair Chen inquired about mail delivery. Mr. Lee responded there is a secondary lobby at Leghorn that could be used. The guest parking could allocate space for a small delivery car. Both options could be looked at. Boardmember Adcock asked about the intention of the wood-like screen. Mr. Lee replied it is aluminum material with printed wood texture. It will stop on the face of the leasing office on the south side. It will turn to the top level as the cover for the roof deck. On the ground level, it turns into a canopy texture. The wood screen is in front of the three levels of apartments. Boardmember Adcock asked about the spacing of the screens. Mr. Lee answered it would probably be 6 to 10 inches. It is mainly for articulation in front of the bedroom and not the living for less impact. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know how it is supported on the roof. Mr. Lee stated the screen element would need to have a bracket every other level for support. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the colors depicted in the rendering. Mr. Lee answered the darker color was intended to be for the vertical break but the three colors were the same. They are aluminum panels and are seamless when joined together. The white frame was intended to be a frame element. The orange wood color would be on the top. The contrast of white and dark color background was intended to make a three dimensional effect. Boardmember Adcock did not think the tiny sliver of color would be experienced much. Suggestion was made to wrap the corner of the pieces with the same color. Simplifying the color material palette would give a better overall feel of the building. Boardmember Hirsch stated the sun going around the building would create shadowed sections of the front and that amount of contrast might not be needed. Boardmember Adcock asked about the logic for the five different colored plasters. Mr. Lee replied the darker color would only be used in limited areas like combining the windows to create a bay window expression. Consideration could be considered to combining the two gray colors. Vice Chair Chen had questions about the materials for the parking garage. Mr. Lee answered the intention to cover it all but gaps might be left intentionally to play with the pattern modulation. Chair Rosenberg queried if balconies could be made larger. Mr. Johnson stated that could be explored. Chair Rosenberg inquired about the materials on the rear façade. Mr. Lee replied the white bars show shallower units. The white bars between the gray and white bars are balcony areas that have some Page 7 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 vertical break. Chair Rosenberg asked about the five different colors on the board. Mr. Lee stated some of the gray colors would be consolidated. Chair Rosenberg asked about the vertical paneling going around the façade. Mr. Lee stated the current option is a perforated metal panel. Another option is a print-on fabric that could be looked into. It could incorporate the main door or exit on the panel. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the two dark areas is where there is a recess but everything else is co-planer except for the area that bumps out on the three levels and past the 10-foot setback on sheet A104. Ms. Kallas agreed to look at the setbacks. Boardmember Jojarth wondered if there is a way to reduce the parapet for the middle section to make the building appear less tall. A more temporary shade solution like an umbrella might work better than a fixed canopy. Boardmember Adcock asked about the setback on the San Antonio side on the sixth floor plan. Mr. Lee said the blue crosshatch area should have a glass wall between them and would be further looked into. The intent is to capture the area as private balcony. Chair Rosenberg encouraged thoughtful space location assignments for parking, making elevators and staircases as appropriately located as possible, having a five-minute loading space near the mail area, expanding the elevator next to the moving truck area, increasing balcony size where possible along with privacy and safety, and landscaping the open spaces on the seventh floor. For the next submission, a rendering of the rear façade would be beneficial. Boardmember Adcock suggested making the lobby stairs nicer, landscaping the seventh floor terrace better and the step backs, and editing the materials with the pedestrian experience in mind. Vice Chair Chen advised making improvements in service and mail circulation, ride share, and circulation to the units, making the corner facing the step back on the third floor nicer, and having greenery on the roof area on the seventh floor or use it for backup for smaller units. Boardmember Jojarth supported all the colleague's comments and preferred reducing the building height is important, having one garage entrance, and having stairs close to the elevator and making them pleasant. Boardmember Hirsch appreciated the building and the details and supported the other colleague's comments. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to continue to a date uncertain as per the CEQA commentary. The applicant is encouraged to take the Board's commentary into consideration. Boardmember Hirsch seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 5-0. 3. Chair and Vice Chair Elections Page 8 of 8 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/07/25 Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation including the Architectural Review Board by-laws and recommended process. Chair Rosenberg nominated Vice Chair Chen to be chair seconded by Boardmember Adcock. Vice Chair Chen accepted. VOTE: Passed 5-0 Vice Chair Chen nominated Boardmember Adcock as vice chair seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Adcock accepted. VOTE: Passed 5-0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 15, 2025 Chair Rosenberg recommended to approve the minutes as written seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Passed 4-0-1, Boardmember Jojarth abstaining 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 3, 2025 Boardmember Adcock indicated the comment on page 84, second paragraph from the motion should say "stair facing Page Mill" instead of "site facing Page Mill". Chair Rosenberg recommended to approve the minutes as written with the exception of the comment noted on page 84 changing the word site to stair seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Passed 5-0 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS OR AGENDA ITEMS Chair Rosenberg announced former Boardmember Baltay would be honored via email offline. Chair Rosenberg clarified the intention was to imply Builder's Remedy projects, not SB 330 projects in a comment made earlier in the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:15 AM