Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-16 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesPage 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES: April 16, 2026 Council Chambers and Zoom 8:35 a.m. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on April 16, 2026, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 a.m. Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Marton Jojarth, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg Absent: None Chair Chen called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared a quorum. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes planned for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Senior Historic Planner Steven Switzer presented the Director's Report. On Monday, a Builder's Remedy project at 3606 El Camino Real received approval. It is the 321-unit apartment building located between the cross streets of Matadero and Kendall Avenue. Upcoming agenda items include the Lot T Housing Development Project and holding elections for chair and vice chair. Planned absences should be directed to staff's attention. The 6/18 meeting will be canceled due to a lack of quorum. Vice Chair Mousam Adcock added she will be absent July 2. ACTION ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to City Council on Outdoor Activation Standards and Pre- Approved Parklet Plans for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue. CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. In addition, on March 10, 2025, the City Council Approved an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for street closure and associated improvements (SCH#2014052101). Page 2 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 Bruce Fukuji, Assistant to City Manager, provided a slide presentation on the work they have been doing the last several months in collaboration with Vice Chair Mousam and Boardmember Marton. Bruce Fukuji covered City Council direction, merchant perspectives, the ARB Ad Hoc process, outdoor activation design, pre-approved parklet plans, pedestrian and bicycle concepts, next steps, and recommended action. Council direction for Car Free Cal Ave was initiated in 2023. In March of 2025, they permanently closed Cal Ave from Birch to El Camino and designated it as a community street and car-free environment. In June of 2025, the outdoor activation program was presented and received public comments from merchants and community members. Council's direction was to pursue standards for parklets on the car-free portion of Cal Ave, consider how to do year-round outdoor dining, and utilize the ARB for design recommendations and review process. Related to bike use on Cal Ave, Council's direction in 2023 was to have 2-way slow bike lanes down the center. They provided recommendations in further meetings about speed, pedestrian conflicts, and parallel routes. On March 18, the Economic Development Committee looked at the concept and asked for alternatives to bike lanes that prioritize pedestrians where bikes are allowed. At monthly meetings with Cal Ave merchants, there have been ongoing discussions about parklets and outdoor dining. The merchants want a range of outdoor dining investment options, permanent solutions, pre-approved parklets, year-round dining options with minimal impact on gas main lines, and the best possible customer experience. Merchants expressed concerns about speeding bikes and pedestrian safety. Vice Chair Mousam and Boardmember Marton have been participating in the ARB Ad Hoc design process, which meets almost twice monthly. Design topics have included requirements and procedures, setback protection, parklet examples around the Bay Area, street function, activation standards, and pre-approved parklet options. They have been meeting with merchants every month to share progress and gather feedback. Bruce Fukuji shared that while the problems on Cal Ave seem simple, the solutions have contradictory challenges, which is part of what led to a set of solutions specific to Cal Ave. Slide 7 of the presentation focused on 10 design problems and 23 unique dining solutions for Cal Ave. The slide showed a layout that addresses the pre-approved parklet and equivalent outdoor café seating desired. Slide 8 demonstrated a potential layout for building frontages with activation zones, setbacks, parklets, café seating, and ADA accessibility. Example parklets at Evvia Estiatorio, Meyhouse, and The Barrel Bistro & Wine Bar were studied for adaptation to Cal Ave. For the parklets, one challenge was figuring out how to create a structure with no foundations or attachments. The engineer came up with doing flat steel plates with sleeves or collars welded onto them for the posts. The structural frame for lateral loading is the moment frames and connections in the roof. This design is transparent, open, and adaptable to the variety of street environments on Cal Ave. There are 3 parklet designs: roofless, cabana, and pergola. Data analysis was done to show the proposed program's square footage of outdoor dining space is equivalent to previous outdoor dining space. Key findings were: outdoor dining can expand via the activation program, 19 of 20 restaurants can locate a pre-approved parklet, and covered areas will be limited to 350 square feet per parklet with a maximum of 2 per business. Pedestrian and bicycle considerations in Cal Ave design started with direction from Council to have 2- way slow bike lanes and a pedestrian promenade. The Economic Development Committee was concerned about this design encouraging bikes to go faster and making the space feel bike dominated Page 3 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 versus pedestrian prioritized. The solution to this concern involves thermal plastic stripes to define the pedestrian environment. The stripes are similar to rumble strips, which will motivate bikes to stick to the smooth area through the center. The design includes a tactile delineator strip along the outdoor dining to allow people with disabilities to better navigate the environment. For next steps, they will present at the Earth Day Festival on April 19, the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee on May 20, and the City Council on June 8. ARB was asked to review the standards and parklet plans and provide feedback on the public space concept. Chair Chen thanked Bruce Fukuji for the presentation and thanked the Ad Hoc Committee members for their time and effort working on this with the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Lara Ekwall expressed thanks for the presentation and noted it was valuable to include the hurdles addressed in planning and designing. Lara Ekwall asked for clarification on where the bike parking is planned and noted she hopes to keep bike parking in front of her business, La Bodeguita. 2. Michael Ekwall, co-owner of La Bodeguita, recognized the work of Bruce and his team but noted what the City promised residents and businesses for many years was a European-style promenade, which has not happened. Michael Ekwall stated the City has spent hundreds of thousands on this only to create a plan that falls short of the original vision. He acknowledged the challenges that were presented but expressed disappointment in the lack of support for the businesses affected by this plan. Michael Ekwall noted the street closure has led to declining business activity, reduced accessibility, and emergency service delays. Michael Ekwall asserted that it is reasonable, after 6 years, to question if the experiment of a closed street has succeeded. He stated most merchants on the street support reopening it as a 1-way avenue that includes year-round, protected outdoor dining. In response to Lara Ekwall's public comment, Bruce Fukuji stated they are collecting information from business on bike parking preferences. If a business wants to keep existing bike parking, there is no reason for it to change. Bruce Fukuji noted this plan seeks to locate about 30 bike racks where bicyclists enter the area, at the El Camino and Birch Street intersections and at Ash Street. There will be additional bike racks in front of Country Sun Market for those coming from Mimosa Lane. Boardmember Hirsch thanked Bruce for the presentation and acknowledged the incredible problem- solving involved, citing the example of the horizontal stripes for slowing bicyclists. Boardmember Hirsch noted the original scheme with sidewalk patterning and glass pieces was not included in the presentation. He stated the bike plan has to be flexible and suggested the bike racks be moveable in some way. He noted more bike racks may be necessary as the street attracts more people and there are playful ideas for bike racks that can be part of the character of the street. Boardmember Hirsch suggested further thought be put into the parklet design, perhaps creating more openness and having the furniture be moveable. Boardmember Hirsch noted that some areas of the street are dead and wondered if and how the plan deals with them. Vice Chair Adcock thanked Bruce and stated it has been fun working on this. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the recent change in the bike concept and wondered if Cal Ave could be a walk-your-bike-only space like some places at Stanford or if walking bikes could be required at specific busier times. Vice Chair Adcock noted the wavy pattern of the bike path may distract bikers from being aware of surroundings and pedestrians. Page 4 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 Boardmember Rosenberg commended Bruce and thanked the Ad Hoc Committee. Boardmember Rosenberg expressed fondness for the new pedestrian/bike path design and stated it was very thoughtful to have bike parking at both ends of the street to give bicyclists the option to walk. She cited the L.A. Promenade as an example of something like this working well. Boardmember Rosenberg noted requiring bikers to walk would make it difficult for those passing through. Boardmember Rosenberg opined the wavy pattern is lovely, will slow down bike traffic, and is overall a good design, though it could be less wavy. Boardmember Rosenberg highlighted the bike parking available to Bodeguita in the new design, which is across the street at the entrance, and emphasized the need for ample bike parking overall. She found the parking options to be clever and suggested adding more to the entrance side toward El Camino. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the potential to create a drop-off zone such as a roundabout or U-turn for vehicles on El Camino, which is worth exploring considering the rise of Lyft and Uber and is a concept the Promenade in L.A. implemented effectively. Bruce Fukuji responded that when they first started, their alternatives were to adapt and reimagine the street. For this design, they looked at the first-step improvements needed for bicycle safety and emergency egress and then added the planters to protect people. Bruce Fukuji stated that bringing cars in and around there conflicted with the simplicity of what was needed for bikes. He noted the drop-off zone idea had not been looked into and was worth exploring further. Boardmember Rosenberg said the parklet designs are simple, elegant, and easily adaptable to the needs and wants of individual businesses. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about any concepts or discussions around e-bikes and suggested they not be allowed. Bruce Fukuji said Transportation staff are looking at the e-bike issue as part of the city-wide Pedestrian Bike Transportation Plan (PBTP). There was a recommendation for a speed limit of 8 miles per hour; though most people have no way of knowing how fast they are riding their bikes, setting a limit would help police with enforcement. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested it may be as simple as stating e-bikes must be walked. Boardmember Jojarth thanked Bruce for going through this process and being conscious of the needs of the community and businesses. He acknowledged it is hard to satisfy everyone and agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that Bruce's team have managed to put a square peg in a round hole. Chair Chen asked for clarification on the 4 types of parklets noted on Packet Page 28. Bruce Fukuji responded that Packet Page 28 was trying to define the parklet shapes and how they fit in the roadway, essentially the spatial conditions where parklets can be located. An example of a narrow parklet is shown in the diagram and a wider parklet is shown in the pre-approved parklet plan. The sidewalk varies in width from areas 22 feet wide (such as from Izzy's Bagels to Mediterranean Wraps) or 30 feet wide (such as by Mini Cat Town across from Mimosa Lane). In areas where the sidewalk is narrower, businesses can take advantage of the curb furniture zone and extend their parklet into that area. Chair Chen wanted to understand the maximum 350-square-foot requirement. Bruce Fukuji clarified that when an applicant files for an encroachment permit, they have to supply structural drawings and meet the California Building Code or the American Society of Civil Engineers Code for Outdoor Structures. After 350 square feet, they are required to have sprinklers, so that is the issue that limits roofed parklets to under 350. Businesses with longer street frontage could build 2 separate parklets up to 350 square feet each. Page 5 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 Chair Chen asked about the parklet design showing a column-to-column distance of 8 feet maximum. Bruce Fukuji said they talked with their structural engineer about what they can do to increase those spans. Because it is a roof-based moment frame and there are no foundations, it requires more frequent posts to stabilize the roof. They talked to the architects about what they can do to accommodate seating arrangements. The architects did 10 different layouts to show how seating can be accommodated with different sized tables, from 2 to 6 seats. In all cases, they were able to come up with 15 square feet or less per seating. All are flexible and allow a dining area equivalent to existing outdoor dining. If someone wants to do a custom parklet, they can do that and arrange it however they want. There are sufficient options to meet all kinds of different dining configurations. Vice Chair Adcock pointed out that the pre-approved parklet designs all have solid roofs and asked whether parklets could be bigger than 350 square feet if the roof were not solid, like a trellis that is 50 or 75 percent open. Bruce Fukuji offered to speak to George Hoyt, the Chief Building Official, about roof enclosure requirements that set that 350-square-foot area requirement. Bruce Fukuji agreed that it would make sense to allow a bigger parklet if the roof is mostly trellis. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted to better understand where the 350-square-foot limit applies, whether to the roof only and/or the base structure and gave the example of a parklet where the roof is part solid and part trellis. Boardmember Hirsch stated it was not a good idea to have the El Camino end of the street interrupted by vehicles. Boardmember Hirsch wondered how to make a symbolic entry to this street, such as an artistic/sculptural piece placed where the plan currently shows long, lozenge-shaped elements. Boardmember Hirsch recommended perimeter connections be explored further to respond to delivery issues. He stated the huge amount of parking around the perimeter makes the street viable. He noted answering the issue of dimension should be included in the package. Vice Chair Adcock stated the list of challenges was clear about trying to make the street 95 percent pedestrian while allowing for deliveries and emergency services. Vice Chair Adcock believed the green bubbles shown were part of fire access. Bruce Fukuji answered that the setbacks are greater where there are medians to make space for emergency vehicles. The median is not included in the space for emergency vehicle access, so artwork could go there. Vice Chair Adcock mentioned the dots and lines pattern for bicyclists is good and recommended straightening it between intersections to make it relatively simple. Vice Chair Adcock hoped people coming through with bikes will choose to walk them when there are a lot of pedestrians. It should be bike and pedestrian friendly without having conflicts or making it too difficult for people cutting through the area. Vice Chair Adcock acknowledged there is no budget to make major changes to the streets but there is another layer of development involved in parklet design that keeps the 22 feet clear while maximizing what businesses can do from each side and loosening the 350-square-foot limit, even if it is with an open trellis. Boardmember Rosenberg stated this design is fantastic for the street and having this as a pedestrian- friendly area is crucial for the City. Boardmember Rosenberg stated it is a tremendous improvement and benefit to the community to have this be a walkable space where people can spend time versus driving, parking, and leaving. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the bike is very detailed and needs to Page 6 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 be done with a brush stroke approach to find smoother curvature. Boardmember Rosenberg said the colored stripes are lovely and requested the concept of drop-off zones at each end be explored. Chair Chen opined that the pedestrian priority scheme is successful and the Committee loves it. It would be hard to ban bikes entirely but some concepts like time-limited access or bike walking areas would be helpful. Chair Chen recommended working with Public Art for art installations along the street and adding interactive things like giant chess or Connect Four for people to stay and play because people staying longer is a benefit to the local businesses. Chair Chen was unsure if the parklet design information is complete because the designs need to be year-round. Boardmember Hirsch stated it might be worth spending some effort to show a standard design with the open roof concept built into it. Bruce Fukuji expressed appreciation for the Committee's feedback and suggestions. Vice Chair Adcock suggested going through the packet to address the clarity of the options because the whole goal is for merchants to be able to take the packet, checkbox their choices, and be 90 percent to building their parklets. On Page A0.1, if a business owner chooses cabana, they have a choice of narrow or wide, depending on their space. The steel base looks like a fixed thing on cabana but the platform base is also an option if they go with the cabana, so that should be included. Bruce Fukuji agreed the platform option is missing from the cabana sub-options. For pergola, the roof options are flat only, no pitched option. On A0.2, Vice Chair Adcock asked how merchants choose what happens with the railing. Bruce Fukuji responded that A0.2 shows sidewall options which can extend from the platform up to the full height of 6 feet or can be above the low wall structure and are primarily for screening. The sidewall notes address those options. Bruce Fukuji clarified that roll-down screens are another option, which are discussed in the sidewall notes under Roll Down Shades. Merchants will see sub-set options for the sidewall notes. Steven Switzer added that optional sidewalls are shown dashed under each checkbox option. Bruce Fukuji shared that the way the current program works is that an applicant meets at Public Works with John McCarty, who goes through the selection options with them. When they leave, they have a clear selection of all elements they want and requirements for what they have to submit in order to advance. Bruce Fukuji agreed the packet needs to be completely clear but noted that staff are supporting the process. Vice Chair Adcock highlighted that on Page A2.1, a parklet roof plan with a trellis is shown but it was not on the checkbox options. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that this packet was well done. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the options being shown as roofless, cabana, and pergola help business owners visualize their options but may not be necessary if the decision flow moves through 1) full base or steel post, 2) railings, 3) roof structure, 4) covered or open roof, and 5) option of drop-down shades. Boardmember Hirsch asked if people looking for parklets usually come with an architect. Bruce Fukuji did not know the details of the submittals that have been done but offered that they vary from having architects to contractors. Boardmember Rosenberg moved to approve following Staff Recommendations 1 and 2 as written on Packet Page 8. Chair Chen seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 7 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 5, 2026 Chair Chen moved to approve the minutes as written. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 19, 2026 Chair Chen requested a change on Packet Page 86, where "Chair Chen observed the taller buildings would be a good sun blocker" should say sound barrier or blocker. Chair Chen moved to approve the minutes as adjusted. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Chair Chen reminded the ARB that the next meeting includes elections for chair and vice chair and anyone with a planned absence should inform Steven. ADJOURNMENT Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.