Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-02 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: October 2, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Marton Jojarth Absent: Board Member Kendra Rosenberg Chair Chen called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared 4 were present. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer announced that Item 3 had been deleted from the agenda. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer specified the item would not be heard at this meeting. The public could speak on it during the comment period for items not on the agenda. Public Comment: Patience Young spoke of Item 3 and disagreed with there being 17 stories. The construction was forward-thinking. She asked if the third building would be low-income housing, if the project should fizzle if the 20 percent would be applied to the tower and the podium building, if there would be balconies in addition to the top floor of the podium building, where large delivery trucks would park, if each unit would have a laundry facility, if solar would be incorporated, what was meant by a commercial condominium referenced in the tentative parcel map, if the pool would be a shallow reflecting pool or a swimming pool, where mail would be delivered and if there would be pet facilities. She had questions about parking. Board Member Jojarth inquired if there was a mechanism to answer the public’s questions. Mr. Switzer answered that general public comment was reserved for items not on the agenda, so there was limited capacity for the Board to comment. Staff would take notes of specific questions, which would be forwarded to the project planner, and there could be follow-up in that manner. Ms. Armer added that the project planner’s information for active applications was available online. Those with questions or comments should reach out to the project planner via email or phone. Board Member Jojarth suggested Ms. Young send her questions to the planner via email, which would be included as part of the package upon hearing the item in the future. Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Member Hirsch queried why the item was pulled. Ms. Armer did not have specific details on why the item was pulled. It would move forward to a hearing in the future. Deputy City Attorney Madeleine Salah mentioned the item was pulled at the applicant’s request. It would not count toward the 5 hearing limit for the project. Board Member Hirsch questioned if the ARB would hear the item only once and if it had been heard by City Council. Ms. Armer responded there were limits, especially if the goal was for a project to be heard by Council. There had been no public hearings on the project. This would have been a preliminary discussion, so it would have been 1 of 2 with the ARB. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer noted there would be an early builder’s remedy hearing for the 2100 King Road project and a returning item for the tier 2 wireless in the public right of way at the October 16 meeting. A few more meetings would occur in 2025 and the packet listed the 2026 meeting dates. Planned abscesses should be directed to staff’s attention. In-person religious tolerance training would occur on October 14 and 15. He would follow up with Board members who were interested in attending. Chair Chen asked if the builder’s remedy hearing was limited to 5 hearings and if the early hearing would count toward the 5. Mr. Switzer answered the builder’s remedy hearing was limited to 5 and it would count toward the 5. It was believed there had been agreement with the applicant to have hearings beyond 5. The upcoming meeting would be for preliminary feedback. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: Council Adopted Resolution No. 10123 Certifying a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023. Chair Chen requested disclosures from the Board. Vice Chair Adcock, Chair Chen and Board Member Jojarth had visited the site. Board Member Hirsch had no disclosures. Associate Planner Kristina Dobkevicius recapped the project. The applicant had submitted responses to the Board’s comments made on May 15, 2025, which would be reviewed. The applicant proposed one (instead of two) entry ID directory sign with The Cannery being at the top highlighting the identity of the site and with the tenant names on the right-hand side. The applicant proposed a monument sign identifying The Cannery as the primary tenant. As for the project ID wall sign, the revised proposal Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 included only The Cannery Palo Alto with no additional individual tenant signage. A slide was provided showing signage color. Materials and fonts had not changed from the original design. The parking ID and directional wall signage remained as originally proposed. Two tenant ID canopy signs would remain per the original submittal. Images of the proposed parking address signage was displayed and existing signage would remain. There was one Type E identification sign instead of the two noted in the original design. There was a new freestanding monument sign. The remaining signs were the same as per the original proposal. It was recommended that the ARB approve the Master Sign Program recommended for the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. Board Member Hirsch inquired where The Cannery monument sign would be located. Ms. Dobkevicius replied it would be along Park Boulevard. The one at the top of the street would have tenant names and The Cannery at the top, which was in response to the ARB’s previous comments. Vice Chair Adcock queried what the timing would be for the future townhomes and if the roadway would be built prior to the townhomes and with signage in place. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer would provide an answer later in the meeting. Chair Chen questioned if there were minimum or maximum size requirements for lettering or street numbers on signage. Ms. Dobkevicius responded that the numbers on street signage were based on Building Code requirements. One-inch tall letters met Building Code requirements. The tenant ID on the canopy of the building was based on the area of the sign. The proposed tenant ID sign was smaller than what was allowed. The allowable was 66 square feet. The letters would all be the same height. Ms. Armer stated, concerning Vice Chair Adcock’s previous question, the buyer would develop the townhomes. It was hoped the sale would close by year end. The main street was currently being constructed. The roadways in between the townhomes would be built at the same time as the townhomes. They were eager to start ASAP. Board Member Hirsch asked how it would affect the 2 monument signs on Park. Ms. Armer understood the roadway from Park to the Cannery was currently being built. Review of the final map would go to Council next month, which would establish the roadways and who would be responsible for different parts of the land. The signage could be installed before building the townhomes. Board Member Hirsch inquired, regarding the townhomes, if there was a City process for dictating what the builder would have to build. Ms. Armer responded there was a City process. It would have to go through architectural review. Generally the first condition of approval was that the building permit plans be in substantial conformance with the approved planning permits, which staff was responsible for. If there should be modifications, it was generally required that the applicant return for additional architectural review. Vice Chair Adcock queried if the townhome site plan layout was approved as part of The Cannery as part of the planning application. It was surprising that the E1 signs were in the corner of the townhomes, not Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 on the street. She asked if the letters on the parking sign would be individual letters with fasteners to the corrugated metal or if there would be a collective plate. Ms. Armer stated the project planner was not at the meeting to discuss it. There was a development plan and agreement, which set parameters and expectations for the development. There had also been a planned community for the site, which included building design. Senior Project Manager at Luxury Surfaces Dustin Passalalpi voiced the intention was that the monument sign at the corner of Park identify the overall site and that the tenant ID and site ID be on the directory sign at the entryway toward the garage. There would not be a tenant sign over the T1 sign on the building identifying the site. The driveway was in the process of being built. The sign would be installed upon receiving the building permit, most likely ahead of the development of the townhomes. To answer Vice Chair Adcock’s question, the parking sign would be individual letters attached to the backing holding the coronation. Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Vice Chair Adcock noted that the font, etc., for the 380 Portage Avenue sign did not match on the elevation drawing and the rendering. Mr. Passalalpi replied the elevation would take precedent. Board Member Hirsch expressed there was no signage that would recognize The Cannery on the Acacia side of the building. Mr. Passalalpi wanted to propose a sign off El Camino to identify the site off Acacia but staff deemed it a noncompliant sign because their client did not own the property. There was an easement agreement and a proposal for that had been assembled. The primary identification off Acacia would be E2.2. Board Member Hirsch queried if there was a way to identify The Cannery on the directional signs on the side of the building. If there was not to be a monument sign toward the street, it would be good to identify The Cannery building from Acacia. It was requested that the issue be addressed with the owners. It was requested that the item return to the ARB for discussion but not for a full Board meeting. Mr. Passalalpi acknowledged that identifying The Cannery building from Acacia was a fair point. Board Member Jojarth questioned what times of the day the entry ID 1 and 2 signs would be illuminated. Mr. Passalalpi answered the signs would be illuminated only at night, for the entire night, and would change with the light shifts and the time change. It was within the Title 24 regulation. Board Member Jojarth remarked the signs being illuminated all night may be disruptive to townhome tenants. Ms. Dobkevicius responded the Municipal Sign Code did not require illumination. Board Member Hirsch asked what part of the monument sign would be illuminated and if the Portage sign would face housing. Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Mr. Passalalpi replied only the letters on the signs would be illuminated. The Portage sign would be double-sided with one side facing the townhomes. Page 17 and 18 showed a day and night view of the signs. Such monuments were very common. He had not personally heard any complaints about such lighting. Board Member Hirsch did not consider it a major visual issue. Vice Chair Adcock inquired if the T2.1 and T2.2 signs would face the townhomes. Mr. Passalalpi replied they would face the garage and parking. Chair Chen asked if future playground tenants would be limited to orange and gray signs. Mr. Passalalpi was not currently branding colors or font. Future tenants would have a right to put their color and phone there. Board Member Hirsch noted there was only space for 3 bits of information on the monument. He queried what would be proposed for the sign if there should be another major tenant. Mr. Passalalpi understood that it would be a multitenant building. If there should be one tenant, the three panels could potentially become one panel or the top and bottom might be blank with the logo in the center. Vice Chair Adcock queried if the applicant would have to return for application revision if future tenants’ names fit within the dotted lines of the monument sign with the directional ID sign. Ms. Dobkevicius clarified the dotted line was for width and height of tenant names. The overall size of the sign was 4’3”X2’, which was the maximum allowable for this type of sign. A future tenant would not have to return for application revision if the tenants’ names fit within the dotted lines. Chair Chen queried if there was a limitation on the number of directory signs allowed. Ms. Dobkevicius replied there could be a sign on each frontage. Vice Chair Adcock proposed discussing whether the Portage sign, and when entering from Acacia and the other directional signs should include The Cannery logo and name. Board Member Hirsch preferred there be a monument sign on the street edge of El Camino. If needed, there should be an exception to allow signage pointing to the commercial usage of the facility. Chair Chen agreed there should be a monument sign on El Camino. Having a Cannery sign facing Acacia or Portage when entering the property would also be nice. Maybe there should be more monument signs on that side of the building. The location of the directory signs was appreciated and that there were different designs of the directory and the monument signs. Board Member Jojarth preferred keeping the number of signs to a minimum and that there not be a sign on El Camino because it could set a precedent. Maybe there was more flexibility on the Ash Street side. The future townhomes was a concern, so signage on that side should be minimized. Light pollution was a concern. It was suggested that all illuminated signs be powered off between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Chair Chen agreed that the tenant ID sign on the building should not be illuminated between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. She questioned if it was required that the address numbers on entry signs be illuminated during the night for fire safety and if the City could regulate lights being turned off during the night. Ms. Armer was not sure if the address numbers needed to be illuminated for fire safety. The lights were not bright. There were lighting regulations. Staff was not concerned about the lighting impacts. If the applicant was required to turn lights off at night, it would be handled through a condition of approval. Board Member Hirsch did not agree with turning the lights off. Lighting was a part of the character of the project. It could be requested that a committee review it and then return to the ARB. Vice Chair Adcock did not agree with adding an additional monument sign, as it was a significant change. At the previous hearing, it was requested that there not be a monument sign on the easement property, which the City supported. She supported a Cannery sign when approaching the campus from the Acacia and Portage side and a sign, such as the T1 sign or something smaller, on El Camino, which she considered more property identification than directional. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer clarified that neighboring properties was not under the control or ownership of the current application or property owner, so putting a sign on an adjacent property was not in the scope. The code did not allow for an offsite sign. If lighting should be limited, there should be a discussion with the applicant to determine feasibility. Chair Chen inquired if office buildings were required to have limited or no lighting during the night. Ms. Dobkevicius responded the Lighting Code had foot candle measurements, so a condition of approval could be added. The foot candle measurement should not exceed 0.5 for a property next to residential use and there were requirements for timing and dimmers at night, which had to be complied with. Ms. Armer explained that was for external lights. If it was a lower light level, the code would not apply. Board Member Jojarth commented the building had very large windows overlooking the townhomes and indoor lighting could be a nuisance, which staff should investigate. Chair Chen requested a straw poll for adding a monument sign along Ash Street. Vice Chair Adcock expressed there was not space to put a monument sign on Ash Street. Chair Chen mentioned maybe on the side of the building. A version similar to the wall-mounted sign on Ash Street at the end of Acacia. Ms. Dobkevicius voiced there was directory signage on that wall. Vice Chair Adcock suggested something like the T1 Cannery sign be incorporated into D1 and D2, not a ground-mounted monument but something on the wall. Chair Chen greed. Board Member Hirsch mentioned that was a good choice. The thought of the monument was to possibly find a way to use it on the El Camino side. There should be a monument sign on El Camino if it was possible for the developer to make a private arrangement with senior housing or the Acacia corner building. Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Vice Chair Adcock understood that the driveways coming into the site from both streets would be part of The Cannery property and that Portage and Acacia were public streets. Board Member Hirsch remarked the streets coming into the property accessed the townhomes and were public streets. Mr. Switzer stated there was a multimodal bike ped path next to Ash, so having a monument sign there would be tight. Wall signage might be more appropriate. Board Member Hirsch stated the alternative could be the wall sign if a monument sign was not possible. Mr. Passalalpi noted he had a supplement document proposing a monument sign on El Camino. Sobrato had come to a legal easement agreement with the property owner in that area, although the City deemed it noncompliant because it was not Sobrato’s property. Board Member Hirsch requested the monument sign be allowed. Ms. Armer stated offsite signage was not allowed by code. MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved to approve the project, that staff review The Cannery sign on the D2 directional wall signs and that the lighting plan be a condition of approval. Board Member Hirsch also moved that there be a monument sign on El Camino if the City would agree and if not successful, that a building sign be added to the Portage-Acacia end of the building. Ms. Dobkevicius noted that a monument sign on El Camino would not be allowed per the Sign Code. The applicant would have to apply for a sign exception and there would have to be findings to approve it. Jennifer Armer clarified that the lighting plan would have to comply with the current code. It was not recommended that a monument sign on El Camino be part of the project. The interest by the ARB had been clearly heard. It would require extensive review and potentially modification to the code. Board Member Jojarth was in favor of adding The Cannery signs to the walls but not the sign on El Camino Real. Chair Chen agreed. Board Member Hirsch encouraged considering the sign on El Camino Real. He removed from the motion the statement that there be a monument sign on El Camino. Ms. Armer clarified there would be 2 conditions of approval – consideration of a directional wall sign and a lighting plan with foot candle measurements. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. Board Member Jojarth inquired, concerning a monument sign on El Camino, if a subcommittee could be formed to develop a proposal for the City to review the code o r if Planning could investigate the issue and develop guidelines. Criteria may have been needed for approving a sign on a property that did not belong to an applicant. VOTE: Motion carried, 4-0-1 (Rosenberg absent) Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Mr. Switzer addressed the process for Board Member Jojarth’s question. Board members could possibly form an ad hoc to evaluate such. Plans for applicants were not developed by staff or the ARB. There was criteria in the code regarding signage. Any deviation from that would be a code amendment subject to Council approval as well as considerable staff time to formulate it. Ms. Armer added that priorities were set by Council. Council would discuss the ARB Work Plan in the future. There was no agenda space available before the new year. The Work Plan or the Council priorities discussion in the new year may be an opportunity to discuss additional work the ARB may want to advocate for. A City-initiated code amendment would need to be directed by Council, although the ARB could advocate for it. Board Member Hirsch did not consider it complicated. Having another monument on the street that would lead to wayfinding would be good. Many may use El Camino to get to The Cannery. Vice Chair Adcock agreed with Board Member Hirsch’s intention but there was a City code, which required amendment. Board Member Hirsch expressed it should be voted on as an exception to the code. MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved to recommend consideration of an off-site sign, as wayfaring, on or near El Camino Real. Ms. Armer voiced that an application would need to be filed requesting an exception to the code, which would need to be publicly noticed and reviewed for that particular location, including sign design. Board Member Jojarth seconded the motion. Chair Chen requested that the record of the decision from the last meeting be supplied. Ms. Armer responded there had been no decision at the last meeting, though direction was given to the applicant, which aligned with off-site signage not being allowed by code. Chair Chen stated she would support considering adding an off-site sign to direct folks to or notify folks of the site. Mr. Switzer mentioned that the item was discussed at the last meeting but it was not included in the motion. It was cited as perhaps a special situation and considered fair to ask for special signage. VOTE: Motion carried 3-1-1 (Adcock no, Rosenberg absent) Vice Chair Adcock had voted no because the site was not a public interest, such as a museum. Board Member Hirsch spoke of the importance of the site’s history. The most historic and interesting feature of the building had been preserved. It was recommended that students visit the site to learn about the history. Board Member Jojarth found that interesting. An historic sign in front of the building may be appropriate, which may look different than the current proposal. Vice Chair Adcock’s point was also appreciated. A sign on El Camino should not advertise a certain store. Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 156 California Avenue [24PLN-00100]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow the Deconstruction of an Existing Grocery Story (Mollie Stone’s) and an Adjacent Vacant Parking Lot and Construction of a Mixed-Use Development with 18,719 Square Feet of Commercial Space and 382 Residential Rental Units, 20% of Which Would Be Provided at a Rate Affordable to Low Income. CEQA Status: An Environmental Impact Report is Currently Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Lot ACC(2)(R)(P); Lot B- CC(2)(R). This item will not be heard at this meeting. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2025 MOTION: Chair Chen moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried, 4-0-1 (Rosenberg absent) 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 21, 2025 Board Member Hirsch noted on the 4-1 vote, Hirsch no, he had not objected to the red box top. The dimensions were fine but reducing the height of it would have significantly restricted the design. “The red box top and” should be eliminated from the sentence on Packet Page 143. Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer acknowledged that staff would review what was stated in the record and amend the minutes accordingly. MOTION: Board Member Hirsch moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried, 4-0-1 (Rosenberg absent) Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas There were no comments. Adjournment Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 10:29 a.m.