Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-21 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting MINUTES: Thursday, August 21, 2025 Council Chamber & Hybrid 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board member David Hirsch, Board member Mousam Kendra Rosenberg, Board member Marton Jojarth Absent: None CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Chen called the meeting to order. Roll was called with five present. 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, 2025 meeting schedules, and updates. Boardmember Hirsch asked for comments on the proposed project for Forest. Mr. Switzer responded a planned home rezoning prescreening went to Council earlier in the month for 332 Forest Avenue. ACTION ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) on 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 Page 2 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), to Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Six Story Mixed-Use Building with Approximately 1,900 sf of Office and 70 Multi-Family Residential Units. The Project Includes a Future Parcel Map Application to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. CEQA Status: A Draft Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. The City published a Final EIR in March 2025. The City is Preparing a Revised Final EIR. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). All members had nothing to disclose and visited the site. Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation including a project overview; background/process; major changes since December; elevations compared to prior ARB on University, Byron, Middlefield, and interior side; key considerations; height and daylight plane comparisons; CEQA; and recommended motion for ARB. Vice Chair Adcock queried if making the sixth floor offices residential increased the overall square footage of the whole building. Ms. Kallas stated the building design in December was 67,166 square feet and the current proposal is 68,738. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the decks. Ms. Kallas answered 97 square feet is the average size of the decks and there are a handful of units that do not have decks. Boardmember Jojarth inquired if the daylight plane encroachment is withing the zoning code. Ms. Kallas explained as a part of the planned home zoning process, the development standards are proposed by the applicant for consideration by the ARB and PTC. The decision is made by Council. The daylight plane is a request for an allowance. Boardmember Jojarth asked if the balconies in the setback are part of the code. Ms. Kallas answered the code allows for balconies to protrude into setbacks. Boardmember Jojarth wanted to know if there is a basis in the code allowing for less open space. Ms. Kallas replied it is part of the PHC request. Ted Korth, Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, provided a slide presentation including a history of the project, aerial view of the sites, existing photographs of buildings on site, a site plan, depiction of different setbacks existing on Middlefield Road, photograph showing comparison of project presented in December 2024 and current proposed project, current design from the view of Middlefield Road and University Avenue, view from University Avenue at Byron showing the entrance to the residential portion of the project and public art that will be incorporated into the design of the exterior of the building, view from Byron, view from Middlefield Road showing the building stepping back, prior and current proposed building uses, previous and current sections, ad hoc committee conditions of approval and responses, ground floorplan, basement floorplan, previous and current unit count, unit plans, elevations, area available for a retrofit in the future, and building section. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol Gilbert requested the ARB hold the developer to no balconies on the units impacting the Heritage Oak, adequate parking, recognition of impact on neighbors for noise and safety, do not hold out further options to rework fitness room, and a plan Smith, Palo Alto, and the neighbors can all live with. Stephen Levy asked the Board to support the Staff recommendation to move the project forward. Page 3 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Faith W. expressed issues with the appearance of the building, the height of the building, lack of a traffic analysis, and parking. Ali S. spoke on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition stating it is important the project does not get further delayed. Chistopher Ream speaking on behalf of 7 (Kay B, Dennis B, Francis P, Maria P, Dick S, Peggy S, Anne R) provided a slide presentation addressing issues with the Coast Live Oak Tree, insufficient parking, the Middlefield Road setback, the daylight plane, and safety with balconies on University Avenue. It was indicated this is too much building in too small of a space. Nounou T. opposed the project and wanted to know what impact mitigations the planners have for parking, noise, sound, mess, construction vehicles and how long the project will take. Boyd Smith, Smith Development, was in agreement with saving the oak tree. The arborists involved agree on the steps being taken to preserve the tree and urged not to get caught in the cycle of the non- tree experts debating the health and vitality of the tree. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted to know the reason for the insistence of the balconies at the oak trees and how many units have balconies. Mr. Smith stated it is because there is no further impact on the tree. Every unit has a balcony. There would be an exception for the units not having balconies. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if there were considers about those units being considered substandard. Mr. Smith stated not having a balcony would make it a substandard unit. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if there is any plan with the arborist for how far back the oak trees would need to be trimmed away from the balconies. Mr. Smith replied the trimming would occur to make room for the scaffolding. Within that room is where the balcony would go. The arborist would supervise the tree trimming and keep it from intruding on the balcony. There is no plan to cut it five feet away from the balconies. Boardmember Rosenberg had questions about the TPZ zone and the intention of the foundation. David L. Babby, Arbor Recourses, explained the initial phase of pruning would occur to achieve clearance for the building and scaffolding. The balconies will be erected within that void. A second phase of pruning will occur as needed under direct supervision of Mr. Babby. The City arborist can be involved. Each cut will be highly selective and minimized to achieve clearance. The 20-foot root zone was recommended at the very onset of the project when Mr. Babby was brought on by Smith Development to evaluate a tree protection zone and appropriate setback for the canopy and the root area. That was done prior to preparing the design. Through the progress of this design development and the hearings over the course of the last four years, it has been elected to establish a 30-foot zone retaining even more roots. The roots will be cut up to the wall. Mr. Babby recommended limiting two feet behind the wall. Conversation on establishing the shoring system is still in discussion with the contractor. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted understanding of the City reserved area at the corner. Mr. Korth answered it was to be made available for a potential new traffic signal light structure. There was no known expectation to have a transformer in that area. It was ensured that if someone had to extend a foundation to support a large pole or something similar it would be possible to accommodate that. Three parking spots would be lost in that case. There are no current plans for that by the City. Page 4 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Boardmember Rosenberg had questions about balcony rails. Mr. Korth said the details could be developed to accommodate a drink rail. The railings along University do not extend beyond the property line. Vice Chair Adcock questioned if there was consideration of setting the upper levels of the building back to align with the basement so there was space for the balconies around the tree instead of encroaching toward the tree. Mr. Korth replied the 30-foot diameter line is a tree protection zone for the area below grade. It is not an extruded shape that goes all the way up the tree. That setback is encroaching with a six-foot area where they are trimming it for the scaffolding. The balconies are adjacent to the tree. If the balconies were not installed, the tree would still need to be trimmed back the six-foot dimension in order to construct the building. In the prior version, there was a long linear terrace that faced the Hamilton which was opposed so the building was extended out to the face of it in order to have the units planned out well. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the Middlefield Setback. Mr. Korth answered the stair projects out about 10 feet from the face of the building so is 14 feet back. The thought was that if somebody extended the road, there would always be a setback between the proposed building and the roadway. Vice Chair Adcock asked if the roof of the basement is designed to be physically traffic rated. Mr. Korth responded that necessity has not been defined. It could be done if needed. Ms. Kallas stated there are no current set plans for the uses of the setbacks. The purpose of special setbacks has been to reserve space for future transportation improvements. The City's expectation of the setbacks needs to be considered by the ARB. The intent of the PTC comments was whether the below grade impacts the ability to use the space even though the improvements are not above grade. Boardmember Hirsch opined it would be better for Planning to say how they would look to clarify the future of the corner of the building. Ms. Kallas said Staff is under the impression that the intent of that space is to potentially accommodate something like a streetlight or traffic signal. Boardmember Hirsch asked if a potential bicycle lane might be possible. Ms. Kallas agreed that was possible. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, added there are no specific plans. It is uncertain as to whether the need would be for relocation of a traffic signal that would need some sort of foundation and stabilization or whether the space would be for wider sidewalks, bike lanes or something else. When looking at an application asking for exceptions to the standard regulations, there is need to balance between the potential impacts and benefits of that modification. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if there are any structural details showing exactly how the foundation works and relative to the outside of the building itself. Lund Smith, applicant team, stated the takeaway following the PTC meeting was to have the ability to potentially have some section of the corner that would accommodate future traffic signal, streetlights, or maybe some utilities unknown. It cannot be built structurally to something that has no definition. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the foundation affecting the tree. Amanda Borden, Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, explained there will be a map foundation. It is not known exactly how the shoring will be installed but there will be a full secant cutoff wall estimated at about two to two-and-a-half feet depth to be installed with the soldiering and shoring support. The foundation wall was moved about five feet further from the tree within the root zone since December. The soldier piers are estimated to be 24 to 30 inches in depth. There are portions of the ramp below grade that are at 30 feet but no permanent foundation within the 30 feet. Page 5 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Vice Chair Adcock asked how the balconies are getting clipped on. Ms. Borden replied the intent is that there will be a modular system that will be pre-built. They can be installed from the two sides. That is why a larger footprint than the scaffolding is not needed to install the balconies. The intent is that the space needed to install the balconies from the side would be the same space that is already occupied by the scaffolding to construct the walls of the building. Vice Chair Adcock asked about crane operation. Ms. Borden said the contractor has put together some preliminary construction logistics plans. That will be developed further with the City with Public Works and Transportation. The balconies will probably be constructed differently depending on which side of the building they are on based on the site access. Some balconies probably will be craned in and constructed in different ways depending on the location on the building. The contractors can support the scaffolding off the buildings so they do not need to touch the ground below. Vice Chair Adcock inquired about the ceiling height on the sixth floor and why the extra three feet. Ms. Borden responded the slab is typically stepped at the roof level to accommodate drainage. Extra space is needed to accommodate that. The primary deck will be stepped down lower than the finished roof surface to accommodate sloped drainage. Boardmember Jojarth queried how the bike room would be accessed. Ms. Borden explained there is a ramp off Byron that is part of the loading and trash area and can accommodate residential move ins. There is a ramp at the front entry and a short stair which some people with lighter bikes can go up to reach the elevator. There is a ramp going down into the parking garage that reaches the elevator. There is additional bike parking in the garage below grade. The request in previous hearings was to have a substantial amount of bike parking at the first floor for those that are using the bikes frequently. Boardmember Jojarth asked if there is data from similar building in Palo Alto or Mountain View regarding the amount of parking spaces needed. Ms. Borden in previous proposals, 20 to 30 percent reduction in parking was proposed. This project only proposes a 13 percent reduction. Mr. L. Smith added there is a substantial reductio in parking in downtown locations. It is anticipated the building will have people who work downtown and can walk to work. The building is located near the train and other transportation methods. There is data in the TDM plan and elsewhere to look for reduction in parking. Boardmember Jojarth inquired about the reason to increase parking spaces. Mr. L. Smith stated the reduction in office space, other constraints, and marketability were reasons. Boardmember Jojarth wanted to know if there was consideration of increasing the parking spaces more in view of the potential loss of three spaces due to the easement in the corner. Mr. Smith responded a block and a half closer to Caltrain, no parking would have to be provided at all and felt there is an abundance of parking. Boardmember Jojarth queried where the Amazon delivery truck or Uber is expected to park. Ms. Borden stated there are two loading stalls identified on Byron Street that are also for trash staging pick up. Smaller vehicles can pull onsite into the trash loading area. Boardmember Jojarth had concerns about delivery parking. Ms. Borden explained the two loading stalls together are about 20 feet in length and should be enough for most delivery trucks to pull in. They would block the driveway to the trash staging room but that is only needed to be used during trash pickup times. The two spaces are on Byron Street. Boardmember Jojarth observed parking spaces are being reduced for the purpose of the development. Ms. Borden confirmed that. Boardmember Jojarth asked if consideration has been made to utilize space on Middlefield Road. Ms. Borden stated it was heavily discouraged to have any vehicle access from Middlefield. Boardmember Jojarth saw temporary parking as a problem. Page 6 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Chair Chen wanted clarification about the daylight plane requirement. Ms. Kallas said the daylight plan requirements are based on the zoning and this block is zoned RM20 meaning that the daylight plane applies across the entire property line. As a part of their PHZ request, the applicant is acknowledging and proposing that the daylight plan exception is appropriate because the adjacent use is not residential. Under the base zoning, the daylight plane applies because it is based on zoning and not based on land use. Chair Chen had questions about the increase in the number of units and balconies. Ms. Borden responded in previous proposals, a balcony was not provided at every unit. There was where balconies were removed based on feedback received from ARB the first round. Based on feedback from PTC, the planners, and other members, decision was made to maintain at least one balcony at every unit. The size of the units is in response to PTC comments about the size, variety, and making the building function as a diverse place. Chair Chen asked about the trash collection route for the office trash. Ms. Borden replied the office trash will be 96 gallons and will be wheeled out to Middlefield adjacent to the single family residents. It will go through the fitness center through the outdoor terrace past the transformers. Chair Chen questioned why the office bike room was at the corner of the building instead of closer to the office elevator. Ms. Borden answered the corners of the garage are the places where parking is not allowed so the intent is to utilize that space for non-vehicle areas. Chair Chen inquired about the building services between the residential and office elevator in basement level P1. Ms. Borden explained the intent was to build in the space required for electrical equipment so parking is not lost in the future. Vice Chair Adcock recommended aligning the building above grade with the edge of the parking garage to avoid having balconies encroach in the tree zone. Providing every unit with a balcony is a step closer to being as equitable as possible. Boardmember Hirsch recommended an area on the A2.1 site plan for bike parking instead of the cellar or lobby and asked if a laundry was being provided. Mr. Smith replied every unit has a laundry. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to recommend no balconies in the area of the tree, was not happy with the look of the north end of the building on the R4 drawing, thought the glass walls for the penthouse were strange, and had concern with the amount of glass in the balconies suggesting tinting the glass. Boardmember Rosenberg liked the corner on the north end of the building, had concern with the glass on the top floor apartments and advised having permanently installed curtains in those specific apartments, did not think every apartment has to have a balcony, believed the applicants goal with maintaining the tree aligns with the neighbor's goal, wanted more understanding of the shoring method, felt satisfied with the balconies on University but would appreciate adding a drink rail, advised the applicant to be as respectful as possible to the neighbors regarding construction, would like PTC to be clear about the possible scope, appreciated the height setback, and advised maintaining the parking as much as possible. Boardmember Jojarth advised making the glass less transparent and thought the building would look better without the balconies, and encouraged having as much parking in the building as feasible. Page 7 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Chair Chen suggested eliminating or reducing the balconies in the tree protection zone, appreciated the amount of parking, appreciated the additional setback on the Middlefield side, and appreciated the applicant proceeding with the PHZ route and engaging with the City to develop and application allowing feedback. MOTION: Vice Chair Adcock moved to recommend: a. Remove the balconies within the H2 units on the 2nd -6th floor (5 units) facing the oak tree or stepping the units back to reduce the encroachment into the TPZ if balconies are provided within the 30-ft radius of the tree. Chair Chen seconded the motion. Amendment to add more ground floor short term bicycle parking. Straw poll – no 3-2. VOTE: Passed 3-2. Hirsch, Jojarth No Boardmember Hirsch thought it would be a good idea to increase the parking and it is unfortunate that the exterior of the building is being compromised but was in agreement that the project should proceed. Boardmember Jojarth supported proceeding with the project but felt there were important details that required clarification before approval. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2280 El Camino Real [24PLN-00339]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow Façade Modifications to an Existing Restaurant, Jack in the Box. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Neighborhood Commercial (CN). Boardmember Rosenberg has visited the site since high school and the week before. Vice Chair Adcock, Chair Chen, Boardmember Jojarth, and Boardmember Hirsch all visited the site. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation including the project location, proposed project, proposed changes, proposed color and material scheme, key considerations, and the recommendation. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the elevations. Ms. Dobkevicius stated the proposed height will be 24 feet 8 inches. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if the recommendation was to reduce the upper two red panels and keep the lower two. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that to be correct. Vice Chair Adcock asked for some clarification. Ms. Dobkevicius said the Staff recommendation is to remove the branding panels along El Camino and Cambridge Avenue. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the extension of the roof over the eating area. Ms. Dobkevicius answered the area is shown on the elevation drawings. Boardmember Hirsch wanted information about the language of the regulation about height of signage. Ms. Dobkevicius provided a slide regarding the Page 8 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 language about signage regulation. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the regulations apply to freestanding buildings. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that to be correct. Size limits are reduced to two- thirds of the maximum allowable per the sign ordinance. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there are similar buildings to make comparisons. Mr. Switzer stated the Panda Express across the street is a standalone building. Chair Chen wanted to confirm no new signage is being proposed or approved. Ms. Dobkevicius confirmed that to be correct. The initial design included signage but Staff had comments regarding the signage location, size, and color so the applicant chose to remove the signage from the proposal. Staff believes the purpose of the panels that exceed the rest of the height of the building is to primarily put the signage in the future. Signage will need a minor Staff level review. Boardmember Jojarth asked for a definition of the sign. Ms. Dobkevicius agreed the way the sign was shown in the rendering looks like one big sign. Assistant Director Armer added the renderings are inconsistent with the plans and the signage has been removed. Boardmember Jojarth observed that even though the writing is not on the sign, the huge red box stands for Jack-in-the-Box. Vice Chair Adcock agreed it is branding and not a sign. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that according to Stanford Shopping Center, the sign codes are specific and have to do with the application itself. It is calculated by the perimeter signage of the sign, not what is in the background. Mr. Switzer added the amount of the red area that would be allowed on the façade is what is in the purview of the Board. Boardmember Rosenberg pointed out the elevation rendering slide and asked where the red façade is. Ms. Dobkevicius stated there is no red on the façade. The only red are the panels in the corner. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the intent of the lights on the elevations. Ms. Dobkevicius did not know the intent. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to know the height of the mechanical units behind the parapet wall. Ms. Dobkevicius answered the existing elevation showed a height of 20 feet 9 inches. The mansard roof screens the equipment. The equipment protrudes a little bit over the existing roof line. Vice Chair Adcock wanted to know why the extra 4 feet is needed on A4.0. Ms. Dobkevicius explained there is the outside seating area with the drive through and this portion is connected with the primary building with the roof overhang. Number 22 is the existing eave height for the first floor. The roof is probably restricting the panel location so two same size panels are being put on top of each other to create the branding. Assistant Director Armer added Staff's recommendation is that it be reduced in height. How that is implemented can be worked out. Boardmember Jojarth observed having proper renderings would have made the meeting more effective. Assistant Director Armer shared there are times when reviewing projects Staff provides comments and try to provide complete drawings. There comes a point when it is important to keep the project moving through the process even when the plans are not fully responsive to the Staff comments. Staff hoped the information provided and clarification in the Staff report would help the Board understand what is proposed. The Board could identify concerns and recommend changes so there is opportunity for the project to move forward with specific direction. Mr. Switzer added conditions of approval or an ad hoc committee could review the minor items that need to be fixed for the inconsistencies in the plan set. Boardmember Rosenberg opined the project is a great improvement to the existing design but there are questions yet to be answered. Vice Chair Adcock felt the Board could recommend approval with some conditions Staff could work through with the applicant. Page 9 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Boardmember Jojarth agreed it is an improvement over the existing design. The red is an issue. The building is not of high aesthetic quality and does not use high quality integrated materials. It does not incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The design is generic. Boardmember Jojarth thought the design could be significantly improved to enhance the City. Boardmember Hirsch favored the design as proposed along with the color and the sign but the sign may not answer the present signage code for the City. Boardmember Rosenberg found that the stone façade was an improvement and agreed that the red was favorable. If the red panels were removed, the Jack-in-the-Box signs would be placed back on the building. Boardmember Jojarth thought one option would be to significantly reduce the red, suggested thinking about a different color for the windows rather than aluminum, suggested using a different material for the soffit, and suggested using a higher grade cement or stucco for the masonry wall and Hardie panel. The design with different boxes looks messy and suggestion was made to make the façade more balanced. Chair Chen agreed that the parapet heights were messy, supported Staff's suggestion on lowering the branding panels, and had questions about the exterior lighting. Boardmember Rosenberg asked to take a straw poll regarding allowing the project to be seen through an ad hoc. Boardmember Jojarth was nominated to be on the ad hoc. Vice Chair Adcock and Chair Chen agreed with having an ad hoc. Boardmember Hirsch was comfortable with the project coming to a subcommittee instead of the full Board. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved to seek to recommend approval with and Ad Hoc to review the following items: 1. Clarify materials to the underside of the eave. 2. Lighting to accentuate the soffit feature. 3. Design lighting to accentuate the façade instead of the upper portions. 4. Revisions to both areas of red paneling while maintaining the height of the overall building height of 22 feet. 5. Provide more consistency with the parapet heights. 6. Renderings shall be provided consistent with the elevations. 7. Clarify the materials of the detached covered eating area for consistency with the main building. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 4-1, Hirsch No Page 10 of 10 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/21/25 Boardmembers Jojarth and Rosenberg agreed to be on the ad hoc committee. Assistant Director Armer stated efforts would be made to have the applicant attend the ad hoc meeting. Chair Chen announced Vice Chair Adcock had to leave to the chamber. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2025 Boardmember Hirsch wanted to change the word "removable" to "movable" on page 208. Chair Chen added in the first paragraph on page 208 wanted it to be more clear that Vice Chair Chen inquired if the gas heater could be on the linear instead of along the edge. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes with the edits to Vice Chair Chen's and Boardmember Hirsch's comments. Boardmember Hirsch seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 3-0-1, Jojarth Abstain, Adcock Absent BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS OR AGENDA ITEMS Chair Chen announced having attended the San Antonio Area Plan first community meeting. There will be three meetings in a three-year timeline. The group will come before the ARB in September. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 12:37pm.