Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ABR continues mixed-use De La Guerra project after concerns over details and materials
Summary
The Architectural Board continued the De La Guerra mixed-use/self-storage and residential project, citing incomplete details on façade materials, window profiles, and a relocated transformer and electrical room.
The Architectural Board of Review on Oct. 27 continued consideration of the proposed mixed-use and self-storage project at 3102 West De La Guerra Street after the applicant team requested additional time to provide detailed materials, window samples and to resolve a recently mandated relocation of electrical equipment.
Applicant representatives from Cornell Collective and design-build partner Arco Murray described a key change since project design approval: because the site will be subdivided and the transformer relocation was required, the electrical room and stair were moved to the primary street corner. Jeff Hornbuckle of Cornell Collective and Jack Boyle of Arcomura said that relocation reduced bicycle parking on the Ground Floor but that parking was relocated to upper floors after Transportation staff reviewed and accepted the new layout.
Landscape consultant Bob Cunningham described a planting plan that includes Coast Live Oaks (48-inch box), Italian cypress and other drought-tolerant species; he said the existing podocarpus at the transformer location was compromised and will be replaced with a large oak.
Board members pressed for more refined details before final approval. Concerns included the use of black vinyl windows on primary facades, the visual treatment and material for a fence in front of a transformer, the look of balcony details and corbels, expansion/control joints on large stucco surfaces, and consistency of eave and roof detailing. Several members asked the applicant to return with physical window samples and a more consistent set of artisan details (tile, rafter tails and door treatments) that align with the board’s prior design guidance.
Given the number of outstanding technical and material issues the board found the plans were not yet in substantial conformance with the project-design approval set. The board voted to continue the item indefinitely and asked staff and the applicant to coordinate a return date; staff noted that an at‑risk building submittal to the building department could be discussed with the building supervisor if the applicant wished to start plan check while details were refined.
