Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started to this October 17th
design review Commission
Welcome
Let's go ahead and do a roll call
We will Commissioner Killian here Commissioner Valia here. Commissioner Weingarten here vice chair Newsom
I am here
Chair case is absent this evening. She will be I
I believe she'll return for the next meeting.
We have four.
We have a quorum.
Excellent.
So, let's move on to the consent calendar.
What do we have on the consent calendar tonight, Mr. Secretary?
We have minutes.
Okay, so, can we hear a movement to approve the minutes?
Any?
So moved.
I will second.
Who second?
Newsome.
Chair. Okay.
Okay, Commissioner of Leo
Yes, Commissioner Killian
abstain
Commissioner Weingarten. Aye
Vice-chair Newsom
Yes, we have 301. That's
All right
Now we're gonna go ahead and talk about public communications
This rhymes not on the agenda
Do we have any such communications?
Seeing none. Let's move on
Okay, now we're gonna move on to the public hearing but before I do so
Has anybody had any export?
Part take communications about
items on in the public hearing
No
I was contacted by
Previous designer view commissioner on this project
Okay
noted
all right, so then let's
Let's go on and and open up this project. I understand this is for
The plaza MSP
Do we have a staff presentation?
Staff has prepared a presentation for tonight
Great go ahead
Okay, so good evening commissioners. My name is Stephen cook. I am an assistant planner here with the city
So the project being presented tonight is a new master sign program for the plaza located at 1331
1933 North California Boulevard
Before we begin there are a few housekeeping items
There was a revised staff report and draft resolution as well as a revised set of plans on for pages I and T
7
to begin quickly let them just a quick
The the plans just had some
repeated notes on them in reference to the types of signs or the locations of signs where they all said the same thing
So they've been they've been revised or corrected to refer to this to the correct sign area
Okay to for some site context the parcel is a three anchor
Parcel that contains two existing seven-story office buildings that has three street frontages Mount Diablo Boulevard
North California Boulevard and Bonanza Street.
Surrounding the site, there are smaller commercial developments to the north, east, and south.
Additionally, there is a multi-story building to the west.
For some background, there is an existing MSP for the plaza that was approved by DRC in 2011.
The new master sign program is retaining existing signage from that proposal,
but is also proposing new address numbers, wall signs, freestanding signs, and skyline signs.
The MSP outlines the appropriate sign standards corresponding to each sign type
As shown address numbers will be installed throughout the site. The site plan indicates the proposed signage and the corresponding location
the next slide will provide the existing garage entry signage as
Shown, the parking garage signage will remain unchanged a rendering of the existing condition is illustrated below for your reference
I'll now discuss the existing proposed wall mounted signage
The site plan includes the signage of all existing ground level wall-mounted signs.
You may reference this illustration in the next three slides.
The storefront signage, illustrated as SSP1 in red, SSP2 in blue, or existing N will remain.
The tenant wall signs, illustrated as T in purple, and the plaza wall signs, illustrated
as PW in green, are newly proposed signage.
The storefront signage illustrated as SSP-1 in red and SSP-2 in blue.
Our existing and will remain.
Sign details are attached.
The tenant wall sign called out as T, our newly proposed ground level wall mounted signs.
Please note that there are two options, either unlit or halo lit, placed on a rail or attached
to the face shield panel.
Both sign types are limited to 15 square feet.
The plaza wall signs called out as PW are also newly proposed ground level wall mounted
signs.
There is an option of either being facially mounted or placed on a stainless steel panel
over the entry door.
These signs are limited to 15 square feet and are unlit.
The existing freestanding signs will be refaced to an updated design.
The illustration provides the corresponding location as well as the existing and proposed
face change.
The next three slides will contain the newly proposed freestanding signs.
Moving on to the newly proposed freestanding signs.
The freestanding sign M1 frontage is Mount Diablo.
The sign will have an overall height of four and a half feet and a sign area of 25 feet.
It's an aluminum sign cabinet with a metallic silver painted finish.
The left portion contains the property name and the street address while the right portion
contains the two tenant names and or logos.
Sign details are provided.
Freestanding sign M2 frontage is North California Boulevard and has the same design standards
as M1. Here's a rendering of what that looks like. Free-standing signed M3 also frontages
North California Boulevard. It contains similar design features as M1 and M2 with the only
difference in that the height is reduced by six inches at the base and the length is reduced
by three inches overall. So the MSP proposes four skyline signs with six possible locations
on the site, two per building and three possible locations per building. The staff recommends
the Commission to consider limiting to two placement locations on each building to correspond
with the number of proposed skyline signs.
The skyline signs will be up to 60 square feet.
As proposed, the applicant provided three illumination options, face-lit, halo-lit and
reverse cut push-through.
Details are shown.
As shown are renderings of the locations of the skyline signs.
And to summarize the request, the skyline sign does not meet the required finding number
Number two, which is bolded for your reference and will require a sign exception for this
finding.
And for some historical context and background, previously in 2020, the DRC approved Resolution
3096, which established four existing office commercial developments, ability to install
skyline signs.
The reasoning was to reduce or prevent vacancy issues by essentially helping attract or retain
tenants who wish to have a skyline sign.
Currently those approvals were also based on the location of the sites.
The sites were near the I-680, the BART line, which enhanced the signage visibility.
However, the proposed current MSP for the plaza is incorporating the same idea of skyline
signs for increased visibility, but instead is now focusing on major arterial streets.
And again, to reiterate the request, the MSP sign program will further establish new address
numbers, ground level wall signs, three new freestanding signs, which requires the sign
exception to increase the number of freestanding signs for the site, and four skyline signs,
which requires an exception to a finding.
As stated, staff recommends this project exempt from CEQA under Section 5301 existing facilities,
and staff recommends that the DRC moves to determine the project exempt from CEQA and
adopt the resolution approving a new master sign program for the plaza, subject to the
conditions of approval.
This concludes my presentation.
Staff is available to answer any questions.
applicant is also here and is available for questions as well. Thank you. Okay. I have a
few questions. I want to make sure I understood what you said correctly and that there is an
existing master sign agreement for this property? Yes, that's correct. And how many skyline signs
are currently allowed? Zero. And that you would like to have? So the project requests that
Each building has two skyline signs for a total of four on site, so two skyline signs per each
building. But the master sign program proposes three possible locations for those two skyline
signs per building. I see. So we want to go from no skyline signs to two in two locations per building?
Yes, that's correct. And can you elaborate on what is the hardship that would cause us to
to want to increase the amount of signage on this building?
That might be a question for the applicant
to make the reasoning.
And the other properties that were cited as precedent,
those are located over by the Barton line, right?
Yes, that's correct.
In the Golden Triangle area.
Okay, and did you find,
because I noted that you said
that they don't comply with number two.
How did you determine that they are
of an architectural appearance
that is appropriate for the building.
Is that also for the applicant?
No, that is applying our,
the sign design guidelines that we have from 1996.
For example, the quarter, half, quarter placement,
where, you know, if you've got a wall for signage,
you would take a, go a quarter of the way down
before you get a sign and then go half of that
vertical distance and then another quarter.
Those types of things.
So irrespective of the needs.
And there's not an Abnett sign and things like that.
It was based on the proportion and size.
Okay.
I'll yield to my colleagues on that.
And not only that is that the building also
didn't have to force a location for signs.
I mean, there's an architectural element
in those buildings that would, that could hold a sign.
Can I come back and ask more questions later?
Yes. Okay. Thank you.
No questions.
How about you?
I don't have any questions.
I have a few.
So, can we go back and look at the finding that we're looking
to the condition, the finding that's changing?
Can you go back a few slides and focus on that?
Let's just look at what that is.
Okay, so the business identified by the sign.
So the required findings is that the business identified by the sign occupies all floor
space adjacent to the wall on which the sign is placed.
So are we saying that we're going to be waiving that finding?
Is that what's asked?
Making an exception of it.
This goes back to prior to,
we have to apply our maximum height
for a sign on this which is 25 feet.
And that is, I mean, and our sign ordinance did not assume
that there would be any commercial signs
above a second floor, in fact,
for the most part on the first floor.
And if they were on a second floor,
that they would have to be signing that tenant space.
So in this case, it's a different world
when you get to a skyline sign at the top of a building.
It's for your biggest, best, and most prepared
to pay for tenant to put it up there.
So you really can't apply.
It's very difficult to apply
because if they're on the third floor
of a seven floor building, it just can't make sense.
And we did not make that finding in the previous MSP,
I'm sorry, MSP for skyline signs,
the overall master document.
Okay.
So, thank you for that answer.
I mean, can we go back and look at the proposed placement?
So just looking at what this is.
So there's three different placements for each building.
And one's facing Mount Diablo.
So that's faces off towards the drug store there, right?
And then across North California is,
try to remember, is that residential
or what is it down on the other side of California?
I mean, are people gonna be looking out
from their houses at these signs?
Across California is downtown.
Okay.
And then they proposed three types of signs.
Let's look at that.
Effectively, what they're asking for
is they're asking for the flexibility
to use a face lid, a halo lid, or a reverse soap.
so we could have theoretically,
in the four signs that are gonna be placed,
they could all be different characteristics.
Is that what we're gonna be allowing here
or will they be limited to one?
Do we know?
The question-
The Design Review Commission
has the ability to change that.
Okay, so that's something we'll ask the applicant then.
That's the sum total of my questions.
Do you have any other questions?
Yeah, can you go back to the rendering
of the sign locations because they seem to be
on a lower floor than it was indicated
in the architectural drawings, right?
In the drawings I had received,
the signs are at the topmost band of the building
and here they appear to be down, I don't know,
third or fourth floor or whatever the floor,
is that correct?
I mean, which is it?
The, as proposed, the master sign program
lists the locations as approximate.
So we request that the Design Review Commission
considers limiting sign location.
So they're saying we get to pick anywhere above 25 feet
that we want to put the signs?
You may.
I think the latitude here is vertical and horizontal
and the elimination of one location, at least,
if you choose to make the move.
It just looks like we're being presented with a very wide canvas of opportunities,
both in terms of the sign types and location, because it's not just three spots.
It's three spots within anywhere from the 25 feet to the top of the building,
because it's represented in multiple ways on different drawings.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Should we ask the applicant if they'd like to address any of our comments?
That's the next thing up, so.
Thank you, Chairman.
Are we done with questions for staff?
OK, so let's move on.
Does the applicant have a presentation?
Make sure you introduce yourself.
Hello, I'm Ted Luthin with Ross Luthin Creative.
I am the applicant and the designer of this.
And I see my inconsistency here.
Apologize for that.
So thank you, Steven, for the presentation.
Thank you all for your time and consideration.
I don't really have a presentation.
I can walk through and elaborate.
It seems like the hot button here is skyline signs.
So let's talk about skyline signs.
You asked about motivation impetus, why skyline signs?
This is the second project we brought to this group.
The other one was the golden triangle.
And what we're hearing from our clients is that
when these buildings were built,
my business partner actually did this original sign programs
number of these buildings. When these buildings were built, it was kind of a
heyday of small businesses, and they were occupied by a lot of a lot of small
businesses that didn't have national brands. There was, you know, Smith, Jacobs,
and Alexander CPAs, and and architecture firms, and engineers, and those sorts of
things. And so when these buildings were first occupied, the the cache of the
building was actually more important than the brand of the business. And these
buildings all had cachet. Their address, their location, I mean to be in Walnut
Creek Center, to be in, you know, Ignacio Center, to be in Plaza Walnut Creek was
prestigious. And what's happened over time is that those kind of individual
small businesses have been replaced by Charles Schwab and Fidelity and Merrill
linch and national brands.
And the people leasing small spaces
are being replaced by people wanting to lease larger spaces.
These buildings are a little tricky for people
to lease larger spaces, because a lot of national brands,
when they want to lease an entire building or multiple
floors in a building, they want kind of a standard floor plate.
They want exactly the same floors.
These buildings don't lend themselves to that.
So our clients are looking to attract those types of tenants
that will take multiple floors or an entire building,
those sorts of things.
And one of the barriers that they are experiencing
is that national brands would like
to put their name on a building.
It's just kind of the way business is now.
So that's the motivation.
That's the impetus.
And as we see in the golden triangle, as far as I know,
there aren't any skyline signs up.
And that was approved a number of years ago.
And I think the reason for that is
that the owners of those buildings,
view those as very valuable,
and they're only gonna give those up to a large player.
And that's why we haven't seen them.
There hasn't been this proliferation of signage.
So I think the same is gonna be true here,
that we're not gonna see
this instant pluripolar abundance of signage.
We're gonna see that reserved for someone
who's going to take a number of floors in a building,
somebody important, and somebody
who really wants some branding.
There was a question about context.
Kitty Corner from this is a large retail complex.
This is a pretty signage-rich environment.
This is not really a pristine environment.
This is one of the few places that doesn't have signs on a building, really.
It's got little pedestrian signs down at the bottom of the building, but the building itself
doesn't really have signage.
There's a ton more signage directly across the street.
a ton more signage on the retail center around the corner. So these office buildings are
sign of kind of, you know, they're pretty graphic minimal. So we think, you know, two
skyline signs on a building is not a really tall ask. You think 24 inch letter is not
enormous for these buildings. I do see the inconsistency on the elevations. We showed
them at the very top. I actually think I like the location shown on the renderings, these
specific renderings better. I think I like them lower. They are addressing kind of closer
up traffic, so I think it makes sense to bring them down in the building a little bit. So
that's kind of my take on the skyline signs. The only other thing I'll say is the monument
signs, freestanding signs. We're asking for three additional freestanding signs. The current
Our freestanding signs are really parking directionals.
They don't operate as monument signs.
The parking is underground.
There's kind of one on the north side of the building.
It's down the side street.
It really is not an identity sign.
The other one is on Mount Diablo,
right at the entrance to the garage that kind of dives down.
It doesn't really operate as a monument sign,
doesn't have tenant names on it.
It's really a garage entry sign.
So we know that we are asking for more freestanding signs.
But the freestanding signs that we have
don't really operate as identity signs,
they operate as directional signs.
So we're hoping you'll take that into consideration.
And I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
All right, so let's go down the line.
So you mentioned that your client, I guess,
or you, or the applicant, all right.
I'm the app, just designer.
Is trying to attract larger scale users?
Yeah.
What's the current vacancy in the building?
The buildings are currently pretty well leased.
I want to say they're like 80% leased.
They're seeing a number of leases come to an end,
and they're not seeing a lot of interest to renew.
So they're concerned that they're
going to see some drop off here.
And I think I actually sent it along with this packet.
there was a study done, I can't remember who did it,
about downtown Walnut Creek and it was talking
about leasing interest falling off at the end of last year
and coming into this year.
Is there, I mean, is there any data you can share
on when these leases are due to expire?
You know, I don't have that with me now.
Okay.
I wish one of my client reps was here with me.
Yeah, I mean, I I have concerns, I'd be honest with you, I don't want Downtown Walnut Creek to become NASCAR and have, you know, signage all over the tops of the buildings which are, you know, the views in Walnut Creek are special.
A lot of the residences look across the downtown and, you know, it starts to, you know.
too much signage, too much variety,
and especially in these buildings.
And I drove by the site this morning
and I found it quite calm and wonderful
that it was just quiet.
And I appreciated that.
I think that I understand that certain national brands
might like for vanity reasons
to have an advertisement of their services.
But I don't know that it serves any direct
way-finding purpose in terms of people
will find the building if they're going to
seek out those commercial entities, right?
And this is a very prominent location
with a very prominent address.
At first I thought that, you know,
there was gonna be an argument made that,
oh well, we need skyline signs because we're, you know,
we want visibility from the major arterials,
you know, 24, 680, whatever.
But now you're saying,
well, maybe we like the signs a little bit lower down.
So that's off the table
because then you're not gonna see them from the highway.
And the other projects you referenced, you know,
I think they're impacted by the overhead rail.
And so I can understand, okay, you know,
maybe the 25 foot thing,
it gets in the way of the BART lines and so on,
and maybe they do need some increased visibility
given the impacted nature of those sites.
So I'm not finding a very explicit justification
to, you know, go against precedent
in terms of the original regulations and their intent.
You know, I think that the protection of signage
below 25 feet was put for a reason.
As far as the other signage locations, I don't have any fundamental objections or issues,
but I definitely am concerned about these skyline signs, especially the diversity of
the signage and the diversity of potential locations.
Could you go back?
I have a question about, I think it's your freestanding signs, the smaller ones.
If you could go back to the slides that show both the existing and the new ones.
Sure.
If I can find that, here are the new freestanding signs, there's the existing ones.
there, for example. The thing that struck me when I saw them is the existing sign seems
to read easier. I mean, the numbers are larger, you know, there's the plaza, and it seems
all you're doing is you're shrinking everything to get a couple of tenant's names on it but
reducing, you know, the address and so forth. So, I don't know, it seems like everything
is the direction you're going is to get a tenant name
as opposed to better identification.
So what was the reasoning for, like on the right,
the existing sign, the parking sign?
Yeah, so the one on the right,
you'll see at the bottom it had a Scott Seafood name on it.
And that's back at this parking entrance here.
And the main impetus for that Scott seafood
was that there was a restaurant in that corner.
And they want to preserve that possibility because that space
is currently empty.
So they want to preserve the possibility
of getting another restaurant.
But a restaurant needs some identity,
which is why we are proposing the monument sign out in front
and keeping them on this directional sign.
the current directional sign off of Alpha Mount Diablo
really doesn't say anything about parking entrance,
or if it does, it's very small at the bottom.
So we are trying to bump up the parking message here
and that it's tenant parking only.
So the front sign really has no logos
and no tenant names on it at all.
The only single tenant name we're asking for
is this one on the back,
just to preserve the function
of a potential restaurant tenant there
that would like people to know as they come back off
and head into that parking area
that that's parking for their restaurant.
And it's a entitlement they had before
and we just want to preserve it.
So really, we're just kind of replacing these in kind,
we're changing the graphic a little bit,
we're shrinking the addresses,
providing a little bit larger name
for the tenant on this back one.
And this one, we're making the addresses
a little bit more prominent
because they're very subtle on the existing sign
and shifting them out.
so people driving by can see them
and then just reinforcing that parking message.
And also the parking message that visitors use
the opposite parking, because this is really a staff only.
Okay, on the storefront signs,
is there a preference you're offering up,
I think three different, you had the steel plate
over the doors and then you had also the option
of the sign in the fascia portion of it.
The owner is open to any of those options.
If you have a preference,
but I don't think we really have a preference there.
Okay, so you're just offering up different options
for the sake of it on that.
Okay, all right, thank you.
Sure.
Any questions?
I think you answered mine.
Great, thank you.
Okay, so we don't have any members of the public here
to talk, so we can forego that.
I mean I think, do we want to go ahead with Commissioner comments?
I think you still have to open up the comment as Zoom or whatever you said here.
Okay, so let's, let's then open up the public hearing.
There's no, we're not doing the Zoom thing anymore, right?
So, so then really with no members of the public here we just go ahead to Commissioner comments, right?
I'm sorry, I think I gave comments prematurely.
All right, I'll have to regroup.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I mean,
let's start to lead in the direction that
you might have a motion about that.
Should we scroll through the, I mean,
so there's, I'm trying to keep track of all the decisions we
got to make.
So there's, just what's on the screen here.
We need to approve a signed proposal, either A or B.
Is that correct?
We can't even, we'll put the summary up.
I'll just say, I don't think we want
to allow an unlimited amount of options where we ended up
with a hodgepodge of different signs depending on like,
sometimes it's above the transom,
sometimes it's in the transom, sometimes it's
backlit, and so on.
So I think my suggestion for our commission
would be to try to limit or be prescriptive, at least,
I hate being prescriptive, but at least do something
to limit the diversity of opportunity,
or this thing will just get out of control.
I have a suggestion.
So there's four different things asked for here.
So how about we just weigh in,
see what the consensus is on them, one at a time.
Yeah, okay.
Is that okay?
Yeah, no, I'm sure.
I think it's gonna be a lively,
so let's try to narrow it down.
So like, how about the address numbers?
Does anybody have any objections to the address numbers?
No, so we're past that.
How about the ground level wall signs?
And I heard somebody say, which I concur with,
that we maybe limit that to one design type.
Do we want to talk about that?
Well, it should be.
And those are the ground level, those
are the ones where they have the options of where they are
over the doors, right?
That's the one, so.
So, yeah, I think we should say either they're
going to go above the door or the fascia, one or the other.
So how about we go pop over to that slide.
So we have how many options to choose from?
We have these A and B.
It's just, was that it?
Okay.
What do people think about A or B?
Or first off, does anybody object to this?
No.
Okay, so how about we weigh in on A versus B?
Anybody care?
I go with B, it's just lower down.
I mean, this is gonna be more on the interior,
more pedestrian orientated so the lower it is and it seems to fit both ways I
really don't care either way but I'm picking B just because it's lower and
more pedestrian orientated I think. How about you Commissioner Weingarten anything?
I think I agree B also because it respects the integrity of what I would
call the harder element elements of the building and this seems like a storefront
is an opportunity to have a more fungible kind of scenario
where as tenants come and go
and it can be easily infilled within that opening.
So I guess I'll go with B.
Commissioner of Leah.
I like B as well.
I think it's more readable
and the other one can get a little bit confusing.
I like, I prefer B.
I agree.
I think looking at this,
is there a question about finishes
or is it the stainless steel finish?
It says stainless steel or painted fascia.
I think we should state a preference
about whether we want stainless steel or painted, right?
I like stainless steel.
I think that's what they're showing.
It's a backing on the painted.
The other question is, is it gonna be unlit or halo lit?
And again, most of these are in the interior.
I don't know if these type of businesses
are open beyond five or six o'clock,
So the need for them to be lit, additional lighting.
I don't know of the how, it's just more ambient light.
I mean, at the same time, Halo lit,
I don't really object to Halo lit
because it's more of an ambient light.
You know, I mean, during daylight savings time or whatever,
you can still see the sign I...
These the are these the green signs on the plan the interior ones or the or the exterior
Steven can you correct me if I'm wrong?
But I think the proposed ten of wall signs would be all the orange green and the existing
So orange and true in blue
The green in the middle of the plaza and then the orange on the outside of the plaza and then the two blue ones upon
Mountie
It's not the interior ones
This sign, this sign, this sign, and then also this sign.
And how does that differ from what's existing?
Nothing's existing currently.
So these are new proposals for new sign locations and signage types.
Sorry.
Aren't some of those other signs already there, blue, green, or blue, orange?
Just the red, orange, and also the blue are the existing signage.
So what are those?
Those are storefront signs, the SSP1 and SSP2.
What do they look like?
Right here.
I see.
And so again, I think B would then be consistent with what's already there.
That's correct.
Yes.
Okay.
And the storefront material is what?
The aluminum system for the doors, glass, what color is that?
All right.
Let me ask you a different way.
We've already made a decision that the sign we're seeing on the screen is compatible
with the storefront.
So what's the backing color of that sign?
Any more?
I think that helps us.
That line of question is really good.
I think given that, I would say make those signs look like these signs.
That would be my suggestion.
I concur.
Match existing.
Matching system.
So let's go back to that second action item.
So any new ground wall signs should match the existing
storefront signs.
OK.
So I think we got through that.
So let's look at the freestanding signs, total of three.
Maybe let's go back and look at the elevation
or look at the plan.
OK, so those were located in the red circled areas, right?
And then, as was stated, the idea would
be to re-face these signs, right?
Well, those are the two existing,
and then they want to add three more.
So there's a total of five, correct?
OK.
And any, first off, breaking this into pieces,
does anybody object to the concept
of more of these signs?
Don't think there's a call for it
to have three of them along, not Diablo in North California.
I could see maybe two additional,
but I think three is an overkill.
Can we see the plan where the proposed location?
Yeah, where did they go?
Let's look at that.
Good question.
So this is the sign location, M1,
located here along Mount Diablo.
That's a rendering of what that proposal would look like.
Here's M2, along North California.
Here's a rendering of what that
freestanding sign will look like.
and M3, also along Mount Diablo, just on the other side.
I mean, North California Boulevard
on the other side of the block.
And that's rendering what this will look like.
And that sign actually is almost going against traffic.
I mean, the traffic that would see it
is on the other side looking through the landscape.
So again, that would be acting almost as a pedestrian sign
rather than a vehicular sign.
Is there any access to the building
directly from that sign location?
From this sign location?
Access to the tenant space
or access to the parking garage?
That's the old Seafood Scott restaurant entrance,
I believe.
Yeah, the reasoning for that sign
is for a potential restaurant to go into that spot
that used to be Scott's.
So there is direct access.
Those are, there's a folding wall there
and the front door of Scott's used to be kind of ahead
on the left-hand side, right in there.
But if I understand this correctly,
you're proposing to put tenant signage for tenants
in the building upstairs at this location.
Scotts or whoever the restaurateurs
or whoever occupies the ground floor space
would presumably be able to have a sign
identifying their entrance and their operation, right?
They could theoretically,
but the whole ground floor here is glass,
so signage is a real problem
and it was a problem for Scotts.
Scotts solved that problem by erecting a giant
canvas canopy kind of an entry canopy and that provided their signage so that
went away when Scotts went away so the purpose of this sign is really to
identify that tenant and so that the three the three signs we're thinking
about is that the one for each kind of one for each building and then this one
here for this tenant. I think if if that were more explicitly stated potentially
could get behind that, because as it's needed now,
it looks like you could just put
any one of your corporate examples there,
and it has no relation to finding your way to the front door.
As maybe the other two signs are presumably
as you approach the plaza, right?
Yeah, and maybe a condition that that sign
be used for a tenant that occupies that space.
I support that idea.
That's the middle sign, right?
That's the third one.
That's the one that's circled in blue here. So for the one
How are we gonna demark this and what we say?
Well blue red and yellow
M3 I believe is this location. Okay, so the M3 our condition for M3 is that it
It's going to be for the exclusive use of of that tenant
the restaurant tenant
Well, how does that impact then? Is there a square?
Sign each square footage for that tenant say a restaurant XYZ that goes in there
And they want signage over a canopy or something
Then is this sign taken away their square footage they're allowed
They would be allowed 200 square feet in addition to the sign
Including that sign if it's for exclusive use of that restaurant space
So let's just say that in
In the motion. Yeah, I presume that it's an it's not something that gets built until someone wants to build it
And then they make a decision which signs do they want right?
like
Yeah, I think that's true
They're not that the landlord's not going to put signs in
Without that right?
Nope
It would be conditioned of Elise right? I mean yeah, yeah
I think the sign will definitely be a kind of pay-to-play sort of sign. Yeah. Yeah, if you want it
It's entitled, it's an option.
So what about the other two, then?
I think we agree that this is probably an important sign,
but the other two.
So like this, I mean, you have this one on the corner,
and then the second one is right next to it.
And the thought there is that one is for one building
and one is for the other building.
OK.
Also, it goes back to, I mean, these are considered monument
signs right yes and the reason for a monument sign for other people that were
not opening up Pandora's box as if they're on a flag lot or something they
don't have the same signers opportunity there but he else does well these guys
are in the most prominent corner in Waller Creek they have signs on their
buildings and yet they're asking these monument signs so again in the context
of okay my neighbor you know I want a monument sign to what you know what
findings do we find that they need this to identify their building? Well it's not
gonna be the skyline sign because no pedestrian is gonna see it right I mean
that's the trick. But again the reasoning is my understanding from the
sign ordinance you know a monument sign was again you know a flag lot or you
know maybe they're tucked away behind another building or in shopping centers
you know, when your pizza is tucked in the far corner
and you don't know they're there,
so they get their name out on the monument
signed out on the street.
Yeah, I mean, I think when I looked at this,
I was looking at it last night, I was wondering to myself,
are they later gonna ask us for more tenants?
Because I would suspect given all the signs
that they're asking for, you know,
there could be more tenants than two, right?
In these buildings, particularly on the ground level.
Yeah, I agree, I mean, there's sort of two fundamental,
at least two fundamental issues here.
One is identifying the address of the building
so that anybody who's looking for an address
knows which building is 1331.
But then there's this idea of a directory
of who's in that building.
And is it a directory of who's in that building
or is it just the two people who pay the most
to be out front as a little extra brand identity and that's kind of a different thing.
I mean I feel like it'd be confusing. I know what they're trying to do here but
I mean it certainly is in case now that they have two tenants in each building and I mean it seems
like the way they're talking about signing the bill and they plan for multiple tenants
on the ground floor so it I don't know. Yeah we saw this as an opportunity for people that don't
have those ground floor spaces that are above that 20 feet to get their name out those upper
floor tenants that don't have signage opportunities. I think traditionally the city has you know you're
not advertising all these individual tenants you're advertising the building right it would
be the plaza you know and the average and the number 1331 or 1333 the idea that the tenant has
house, have their name out on the street, you know, for these type of projects, you
know, you're kind of setting a precedent here.
And again, yeah, well, it's similar to your pizza place in the back of the shopping center.
It's the same sort of concept, right?
Just an office building instead of a retail center.
I mean, do we, do we want to say, just listening to what people are saying here, do we want
to say that these signs are okay, as long as they're for tenants that don't have the
opportunity to have ground level signage?
Is that what we're saying, or do we not want them at all?
I don't think, in my mind, I wouldn't have the finding.
I'm OK with the two directionals that are already there
in the parking, and I'm willing to give them
one out on the corner.
But again, the idea that they need these monument signs,
I don't see where I can see a finding for them,
that they need additional identification
to find this building.
So it's just additional signage that they're trying to get,
which I understand.
And so I can say that I'd be willing to go along and give them
one in the corner.
Actually, I'd be willing to go along, too,
with the one, the condition about whatever restaurant
in there, because I think that would be separate.
But I'm not willing to go three of them along the one, two,
And are you suggesting that if there's a single sign out at the corner either side that it
should really be identifying both addresses and entrance to the plaza?
That's, you know, I mean they can decide that, but yes.
As opposed to having a separate sign for each building.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
So I think that's so there's we'd be looking for one and two to go away.
but we're open to looking at a revised sign
that addresses the corner.
Is that correct?
One, two to go away.
Well, I think the M1 and M2.
The two parking directional signs that are already there
are OK, and then the motion would
be that they could allow the one in front of the restaurant
as long as that tenant sign related to that space.
And then they're allowed one more
somewhere on the corner of Mount Diablo
and North California Boulevard.
I think that's clear.
Other than we don't have a design
for that one on the corner, right?
Well, we could pick one of the two proposed, I suppose.
Okay.
Or we could ask them to come back.
Why don't we just do that?
Why don't we just say we're okay with M1?
I do believe we have designs for both those signs.
Okay.
If you're talking of one of the ones that are closest
to the corner of Mount Dean.
Yeah, there are two designs proposed, but when we make the decision to allow only one,
does that change their idea about having to, you know, because they split the information?
So.
Okay.
So how about this?
The motion is for M1 or M2, not both.
And if the design changes, that can be done at the signed subcommittee.
I'm okay with that.
Mr. Secretary, do you think you got that?
I do, but you're going to have to repeat that when you actually make a motion.
Okay.
We'll get it right.
We'll get it right.
We'll get it right.
It might take us a few times to run through it.
Okay.
So then let's go to the next one.
So far, we think you've reached a consensus on the parking signs and the wall signs.
And now it looks like you've reached consensus on the freestanding signs.
Okay.
So now the skyline signs.
So let's go to that.
Let me weigh in.
I'm against all of them for several reasons.
First is the practicality.
When you're driving around, the sign that's facing S1, that's facing west, there's a,
What's not shown in this picture is another tall office building on the corner of Bonanza
and Mount Diablo that's going to block this anyway.
And again, you know, not until you come within, see in the building, are you going to see
that skyline sign.
Then the ones on California, along that street, there's a whole row of tall Canary Island
pine trees on the center median island
that are gonna block most of that
that are really just looking over to the downtown area
that see this building.
So again, you know, the idea that they need identification
or this is gonna bring them in from the freeway is not true.
You don't see this from the building, it's blocked.
And then the last signage
on the one that's going down North California on that,
Again, the only purpose of that is you're going to see it coming down California Boulevard,
but just see the building.
And with everybody's GPS and everything, I don't see why, you know, we're allowing
a break from the sign ordinance or any, you know, additional signage when, you know, I
I don't see any valid findings for it,
that they need this to identify the building.
The idea that this is changing the tenant thing,
that really wasn't the reason for the skyline.
If I remember back in the 70s and 80s,
we had a proliferation of signs, freeway signs,
and all the billboards and everything,
and the city went in the direction
of trying to declutter everything.
And that was the main reason
for minimizing these types of signs.
The signs that we have done recently
is within the BART corridor.
And the reason was, is from the BART station
and everything in the freeway,
you know, that they could identify it from there
and get to it.
Well, this isn't in that area
and that's not the same reasoning here.
And then the third thing is, again, you know,
I think we already did it.
We opened Pandora's box by allowing the,
the skyline on the other one and everyone says,
well, it's just this one.
Well, here we are two months later, here we go again.
And I think it's just, we're gonna be creating a mess
for the rest of these tall buildings in the cities
wanting the same thing.
So I'm not in favor of any of the skyline signs
at this point.
Huh, thank you, as I agree.
Commissioner Valia, anything?
I abstain. I don't have an opinion. I mean, I see what the intent is, and I see that it's
more business-oriented than anything else, but because like Brian says, the building
themselves are the same way here. So the signage is – I mean, it would be – with that kind
of thought, it would be, they are redundant, so.
Okay, so I think, I'll just weigh in then.
So first off, I think some really great points were made
by Commissioner Killian and Commissioner Weingarten.
I think the question I have is, I mean,
I think we're looking at these signs
and I agree with Commissioner Killian
that you won't actually see these signs
from a pedestrian scale or from,
I mean, even if you look at that one
in the lower right-hand corner,
if you see the size of it,
that would be the only view of that sign.
And you can't read it.
It's not readable.
I just, I guess,
I do wanna be sensitive to the fact
that we need to get tenants in these buildings too.
So, you know, I'm wondering if there's any,
if there's anything we can do for these folks
that would help them attract the tenants.
Because I think, I know there are problems,
I'm renegotiating my own lease right now,
and the rates, the vacancies are up a lot.
So, I mean, I don't see the value of these,
but I think if they were to come back later
with something that was actually addressed more
to people who actually drove in this buy-in.
I mean, and I'm thinking like,
regardless of whether you choose to look at the one
on the bottom two images or the one in the middle,
I just don't think you see him.
I mean, I think I'd be in favor of looking at some
that were like on that first level,
the upper tier of that first level,
which is it's not much more than 25 feet.
I mean, I think maybe at some point you'd measure it.
It would be 25 feet on the,
because the ground is not flat.
But I just, and I just don't,
I guess in the end, if this is what the submission is,
I kind of go with the others and would turn it down.
And I would kind of support that,
if you're talking about the first level along the ratio,
and it fit in with the architecture,
and if that was 28 feet or 30 feet,
I would consider something like that too.
Again, the philosophy, we've been here recently,
and everyone probably has their own opinion,
but the idea that we're here to help the economics.
I mean, we are a design review,
we're here for the aesthetics
and what the public sees at large.
And yes, well, it's nice to help you,
keep the city growing and everything.
I think our focus should be on the aesthetics,
the architecture and we're not dictating market trends here.
If I may, I think to that point, you know,
I'm sure there will be people who have different opinions
about this particular complex
and the design of these buildings,
but I just would posit that any blank surface
on an architectural project is not an open canvas, you know?
And just because there are these bands
which are part of this particular project's design
doesn't mean that they deserve to be faced with signage.
And, you know, I agree that, you know, that clutter and the overall experience that we're
projecting to the community would be called into jeopardy by the addition of a lot of
signage on the top of every building in downtown Walnut Creek.
Okay.
So let's, somebody want to take a shot at what that motion would be?
I think we would just deny that motion, right?
I mean, do you want a motion for the whole thing or just this, or what do you want?
Just this last piece, because we've been doing this line by line, so.
I make a motion that we deny the applicant's skyline signs.
Okay.
That's it.
So are we going to do one motion?
We're going to do one for each line?
What do we think?
Well, if it's possible for the Design Review Commission
or a Design Review Commissioner to formulate a motion that
would capture the entire entitlement,
that would be best.
OK, so let's go back to the summary sheet,
and let's talk about what that is.
OK, so item one is the motion will include the approval
of the address number sign, right?
Number two will be, we approved the ground level
wall signs contingent on the fact
that they match the existing stainless steel signs.
Could be litter on that.
Well, those existing ones are lit, so, yeah.
Yeah, both in material and location.
Material.
Because they're in the storefronts, not above.
Yes, in material and location.
Item number three is the free sanding sign.
So we approve signed three,
provided it's just for the one potential restaurant tenant
or whatever tenant that has a beam.
And we approve either M1 or M2.
Number four, we deny the skyline signs.
He's busily riding.
Okay, so there's a motion on the Plaza MSP2,
a motion to approve as follows.
The address signs as is, the ground and wall signs
as shown designed to match the existing signs
in terms of material and location.
The freestanding, two of the three new proposed
three-standing signs including M3 for the exclusive use
of the adjacent tenant space and either M1 or M2, not both,
and to not include or a denial of the addition
of skyline signs.
Sorry, point of order question, Mr. Secretary.
Do we have to amend this to also say
that it's exempt from CEQA?
the motion should include yes, the first motion.
Also could I, just to, what I'm trying to do
is get this clear for future projects.
I don't believe on the skyline signs,
one of the reasons is that we could find the findings
of either one, two, three, or four, not just two.
Nobody else agrees with that, but.
Let's flip back and look at the findings
to see whether we agree with that.
One is good design criteria requires a higher sign.
That's not true.
Right?
And the two business is occupying the entire floor?
Not guaranteed, yeah.
Three higher sign improves the architectural appearance
of this building?
No.
And then any other findings?
OK.
So do we need to include that this project is exempt from CEQA?
Well, can I suggest that we remake that motion?
OK.
And yes, A, for an independent motion for CEQA
to find that it is categorically exempt, 15.301.
And then a motion for those items that we just discussed.
And you need to include that the Design Review Commission is
approving the sign exception for the number of freestanding
signs in that portion of the motion.
And then if you also wanted to make the statement that the
denial of the skyline signs is in the absence of all the
Findings that should be stated. I'm approved making those have been I I agree with making those amendments
Everybody else
Okay, is that something you can just so moved? Well, we need somebody needs to make that first motion
Make it just like you said
That the designer of you Commission finds this project to be exempt from CEQA via section 15 301
Yes, yes
I think the author of the move was one of you two, right?
You, Chairman, Vice Chair.
Also move.
I move to that thing he said.
That's a lot of you here.
Thank you.
OK, and you have a second, right?
Second.
OK, so how about a vote?
OK, Commissioner Killian?
Commissioner Velia? Yes. Commissioner Weingarten? Aye. Vice Chair Newsom? Aye. Ayes have it.
So that was just for the CEQA, right? We're doing a separate one for this? Yes.
Okay. Do we need to repeat that? I think I think we substantially said it.
so I so move second vote commissioner of Aliyah yes
Commissioner Killian I mr. Weingarten I mr. Newsom I okay so that that's into
that so let's move on to can Commission considerations so understand that we
need to select a new sign subcommittee. Any volunteers? I'll volunteer. I will
also volunteer. Wow. Okay we have two volunteers a new sign subcommittee is
Commissioner Weingarten and Commissioner Newsom, thank you very much.
I don't know that I need some, I don't know that we've got volunteers here, unless anybody would like to challenge that, volunteerism.
Okay, so that's it. Any other Commission Commission considerations? Okay, any
Commission member staff staff reports or announcements? Are there any other
absences for the next meeting? Pardon? Yeah, what's the date? What's the date of
the next meeting. It is the third Wednesday of April, which is April 17th. I can't say
for now. I potentially may not be here, but I will let you know. Okay, well, I mean, it
like I can be here so so far yes okay so as soon as either of you know positive
or negative please get back to the secretary so that because there won't be
a meeting if you're not okay yes we'll do all right and I believe Commissioner
Case will be present anything else all right then let's adjourn