Welcome, everyone, to the April 17th Design Review Commission meeting.
Can we start with a roll call?
Thank you, Chair.
We can.
We have Commissioner Weingarten.
Present.
Commissioner Valia.
Here.
Vice-Chair Newsom.
Here.
Chair Case.
Here.
Commissioner Killian is on vacation.
We have a quorum.
Fantastic.
So next we will move to our consent calendar.
So this is for any items not on our agenda, and also the adoption of the meeting minutes
from April 3rd.
Can we move to adopt those minutes?
Anyone?
I move to adopt the minutes of April 3rd.
I second it.
If it's needed.
Should we do a roll call?
Yes, please.
Okay.
Commissioner Vice Chair Newsom.
Yes.
Commissioner Villier.
Yes.
Commissioner Weingarten.
Yes for the eyes carry
Awesome. Okay next we move to public communication
So this I apologize is what is actually reserved for comment on items not on the agenda
and then I am also
Inclined to mention that under the brown act the commission cannot act on items raised during this portion the public communication portion
But we may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed
So anyone in the audience?
Okay, do we have a virtual component anymore? Great, great. Okay, so that that we'll move on
to our public hearing. So tonight we're hearing about the Centerpoint Business Park
Master Sign Program. Do we have a staff presentation?
Yes, good evening commissioners. My name is Simmer Gill, Associate Planner with the City.
We are here tonight to consider the Master Sign Program for the business park located
at 165 through 225 Lenin Lane.
The applicant, Mike Gratton, should be arriving shortly, but I am here to answer any questions
after the presentation in his absence.
Just to orient you with the site, the Centerpoint Business Park is located at the corner of
Lennon and Nayshow Valley Road does consist of six multi-story office buildings, the zoning is
business park and the existing master sign program or the current master sign program it was adopted
in 1982 and any change to that master sign program or an exception would require design review
commission approval and that's why we're here tonight. And here's a map that shows the existing
signage. There are four tenant monument signs. They are identified in the yellow star and
there is one directional sign identified in the green star and then there's one main entry
monument sign and all of these existing signs are being re-faced and will remain in the
same location. The applicant is seeking a new master sign program to essentially update
the existing Center Point multi-office building campus
to re-face all of the existing signage
in their existing locations.
The current master sign program was adopted in 1982,
so therefore it is outdated and provides little flexibility
and does not allow for any wall sign locations.
So the main purpose of tonight's master sign program
is to allow or include 14 new wall sign locations
on the building walls for individual tenants
in this building.
And that does require DRC approval.
And the existing main wood,
the entry wood sign panel is 27 and a half square feet.
It will be re-faced with a new aluminum panel
installed over the existing posts
and will total 16 square feet.
The letters will be 16 inches tall and 11 feet,
10 inches in length,
and it will be flush-mounted onto the panel.
There are existing landscape light fixtures
that will remain below the monument sign
that do provide external illumination.
And the four existing tenant monument signs
that you see here will be rephased
with new aluminum sign panels
and installed over the existing concrete posts.
Four-inch tall address numbers
and 10-inch tall acrylic letters and logos
will be mounted over the aluminum panels.
And the maximum letter height proposed is 10 inches.
The monument signs can provide up to four panels,
panel spaces each for individual tenants
as opposed to the existing signs
that allow one or two spaces.
Staff does support this change,
but recommends that vinyl cut lines be included
to create a separation between each tenant's name.
And in keeping with the City's design guidelines,
if there is more than one tenant's name on the sign panel,
a two-inch separation shall be retained
at the top and bottom of each sign
to avoid a tight site layout.
And I have included that as a condition of approval.
And here is the existing directory sign to your left.
It will be replaced with the new aluminum sign panel
that you see to the right,
located in the same planter island.
The proposed sign is 12 square feet
and mounted atop aluminum pipes
with a total height of six feet above grade.
And currently the buildings on site
do not have any sign locations for individual tenant names.
There are only address numbers.
A total of 14 new sign locations are proposed
on the facade of the six buildings.
And all tenant signage will be flush mounted with studs
to the building facade.
And due to the varying width of the building facade,
the applicant is proposing two options,
a 25 square foot sign area that you see here
and a 50 square foot sign area outline that you see below.
And the map at the top does show the locations
for these sign areas.
The 25 square foot area location option
is for the corner ends of the building
where the width of the building is shorter,
and the maximum letter and logo height
for all of the tenants will be limited to two feet 10 inches
and all signs will be non-illuminated.
The proposed wall signs will provide more visibility
from Lennon Lane for clients
that would be visiting the site.
And this project is subject to CEQA
and staff has made a recommendation
that the project is exempt from CEQA
under section 15.301 of the CEQA guidelines
for existing facilities, as it's an existing office park,
and the only change is they're updating
the existing signs with no changes
to the buildings or parking layout.
And just to summarize, the proposed master sign program
to the current master sign program is that,
the proposed is an update, basically,
to an outdated sign program that is in need of a refresh.
so the update will give the business park a fresh identity
and the addition of the tenant wall signage
on the buildings will help attract more tenants
to lease space within this complex.
And with that, staff does recommend
that the design review commission
move to adopt the resolution approving the center point,
the new master sign program
for center point business park
and subject to the conditions of approval.
That is all I have but I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Great, thank you.
And before we move to questions,
has anyone on the commission had any ex parte
conversations with the applicant?
No.
No.
Great, okay, any questions of staff?
Yes.
Regarding the two areas, 25 and 50 feet,
I thought I read in the report that it was an and or,
so is the intent to pick one or the other
or to allow signs in both locations?
It's pick one or the other because there's,
can I go back to that slide?
So there's two options because there are some,
if you look at the map at the top, sorry,
it's a little tiny, but it actually shows
some of the buildings, they're showing the 50 square feet
area and the 25 feet, depending on where the tenant
is located within that building.
So would it be possible to have a sign in both places
that close to each other?
I don't believe so, but the applicant is here,
so maybe I could have them elaborate and clarify that.
Okay, so, sorry.
One more question.
Does it stipulate the height of the signage
will be restricted to that band
that's been graphically identified?
Correct, the two feet, 10 inches
is what the height would be.
No, no, I mean above grade, above the ground.
Yes.
There's no plan to put those signs above that data.
No, that is correct, beyond the fascia of the building, yeah.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Are we within the square footages allowed for signage?
Correct.
It's within the square footages.
Yeah.
Are any of these signs proposed to be lit?
No.
All non-illuminated.
Yeah.
Okay.
Uh, is there a presentation from the applicant or just available for questions?
I believe, um, Michael Gratton, he's available for questions but no formal presentation.
Okay.
Uh, do we have any questions for the applicant?
I'd like to ask a couple about the monument signs, if we can.
So we'll have you come to the microphone
and just state your name for us.
Oh, hi, Michael Gratton with Specialized Graphics.
Well, maybe go back to the monument replacement sign.
Can we go back to the monument sign?
Sorry.
The ones that are off-building.
Yeah, so that one.
So, that's fine.
That's a good example here.
So, I'm looking at this and the existing one,
it seems to show that the supports are angled,
but you're coming back with square,
so, but you're applying a new finish to it.
So, are we still gonna see the old angled braces there,
or how does it actually work?
No, it'll look like the representation there,
the framing or the structure of the supports are concrete.
So the aluminum cabinet or the box will be dropped on top
so that goes end to end.
And it'll cover the angle, I think,
if I'm understanding your question correctly on the ends.
Yeah.
I mean, is that like greened over?
Is there like ivy or something over the top of that
that you're going to take off?
I don't think there's any spoilage or shrubbery there.
Okay.
So but the representation that's shown there on the bottom right is accurate to what the
final-
That's what the end product will look like.
Right.
Okay.
And the existing vertical concrete supports are existing.
So it's just going to be affixed on top of that existing infrastructure?
Okay.
Okay.
And it's only one, right?
That's the only one, right?
Monument.
And these are all existing signs.
We're just refacing them, refurbishing them.
So I think it's a good question.
So there will be no remnant of the old sign visible.
Correct.
And then on the ends, it'll be closed off
with the same material?
Correct.
Yeah.
You can almost imagine like a toaster cover going over
a toaster.
So it'd be similar to that.
So the existing concrete supports
would be painted to match the building,
but other than that, we wouldn't alter the concrete footings.
Okay.
Well, we see those, though.
Well, the base that we're seeing on the rendering now,
the gray, blue, is that a new material,
or that's just repainting the existing concrete base?
Repainting the existing concrete, yeah.
And so then the lighter gray that hosts the letters
is going to sit a little bit off of that
because you're slipping it over the top.
Is that what that?
Correct.
It'll be pretty tight to the existing.
OK.
So it won't look like it's something
that's just been dropped on top.
It'll be all fabricated to the specs,
so it's as tight as we can possibly make it.
Mm-hmm.
OK.
Other questions of the applicant?
I kind of want to get an answer to my 25-foot versus 50-foot
question so
so the reason why on the buildings
there are some locations that are
Annotated as 25 square feet and some 50 is just the way that the sizing of the paneling works
So they're all the same height all the way across on the end of every building. It's not as wide as in the middle
So it's normally I would think intuitive to put the sign on the end of the building
but a lot of the address numbers are going to be on the end of the building where they currently exist and
If you're looking at this example right here
So you can see the address numbers on the far left
and then on the far right that would be a 25 square foot band and
then all the bands in between the two steps are
That's what we're talking about.
We have a situation where there's
a where there are 2 signs.
Next to each other one that's in
the 25 foot zone and when it's
in the 50 right next to it.
I wouldn't anticipate that.
So it sounds to me maybe we are
recommending a condition of
approval that does not allow
have they're vacant right now ones that are occupied they probably have one or
two tenants in them each tenant probably takes an entire floor they're all two
story office buildings so if there was an office building where there were
three tenants that took up the space between the two floors I would
anticipate that it would make sense we would want to have the ability to put
three signs up for the three tenants. I'm in I'm assuming the majority of the
buildings are going to be like a single tenant occupied or each floor will
probably be a single tenant so there might be two people per building but
what we annotated here on the site map which is here are all the possible
locations and no more than that would make any sense because those are the
only ones that are visible from the parking lot and I don't anticipate the
law be used up but we're we're requesting that we would have the
ability to use them if there were if there was you know tenants that were
requesting it and if the occupancy the buildings made it sensible or where they
would want to have some signage what what oops sorry yeah what is the
material again for this they're they're not illuminated I believe they're one of
the materials thick acrylic acrylic and the existing numbers are engraved in the
fascia panel and you're proposing to put a flat panel over the top right so it's
gonna be proud of the original fascia it's gonna look like for lack of a
better term a bit of a band-aid with a new number on it. Yeah I think it'll look
better than a band-aid. Hopefully it'll be an architectural improvement. It's
gonna have very little dimensionality to it and everything will match across the
buildings. That back panel will be painted the same color as the wood that
it's going to be attached to so it should not be something that's going to
jump out at you in terms of aesthetics.
So what is the back panel again?
What material is it?
Acrylic.
What's the fascia panel?
Everything is acrylic.
The fascia is wood.
Yeah.
And where you see it engraved, the wood
is all chipping, flaking.
I don't want to say it's rotting out,
but it wouldn't make any sense to try
to fill in those address numbers where they're engraved
and paint over it.
So it seems like it's a good cosmetic solution.
Everything would match up.
And I understand your point where you're saying
you're sort of putting a band-aid over it,
but there is a design element to it
that ties in with all the other signs
and we're of the opinion that it's an improvement aesthetically.
So there's gonna be a lot of repairing.
If you said the wood is decaying,
you're going to repair everything.
And then you're going to place the signage.
Is that the plan?
The wood's in good condition.
But as you can imagine, when you've engraved into the wood
and it's been painted over decades,
it's not a perfectly clean cut where it's
been engraved over the years.
So it's flaking.
When you get up to it really close,
You notice that it's certain to flake and chip,
and the numbers aren't as sharp as they used to be.
So we're not planning on repairing the wood, per se.
If it needed it, we could put some wood
preservative product over it.
But there was no intent to replace the wood
in order to refurbish the wood.
I understand your solution to the problem.
I just think that you can see in the photo
that the wood grain finish will definitely be disrupted
by the smoothness of your panel that goes over the top.
So it's not gonna blend in.
I suspect it's not going to blend in.
It may be the same color,
but you're gonna definitely see it.
I just, that may be more of a comment than a question.
I just, I'm hearing what I'm saying.
I just wanna make sure we're communicating here
because it's not super clear in the detail.
So the panel, the magenta panel that you show an outline,
like a 25 square foot outline.
Is that a panel or is that a limit line?
That's a limit line, it just shows the maximum sign area.
Okay, so then what you're proposing
is individual letters on the wood.
Correct.
Except for the numbers.
Except for the numbers, okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay, I got it.
individual letters over the existing wood.
Right, except for the number address there.
They're putting a little, like a backer panel,
which then the numbers will be fixed to cover
the engraved numbers on the wood.
And how, I don't know how this is,
how critical is it for you to have colored signs
versus monochromatic signs?
All the other signs in the Shadelands business park
are their corporate colors.
And we've done signage for Kaiser
and a bunch of the other buildings in the Shadelands.
And I haven't seen any of the buildings
where it is monochromatic.
If I'm putting myself in the shoes
of the owners of the building, it's
going to be easier to attract tenants to occupy these spaces.
if I'm allowing them to express their corporate colors
on the building that people identify with.
If I'm a tenant, same thing.
If I'm a property manager, I'm probably indifferent,
unless there's a reason why it wouldn't make sense
to be able to allow the corporate colors.
These logos that we show here, these
aren't tenants in the buildings, nor are they
proposed tenants in the buildings.
These were just logos that we took probably
from another sign program or from the air.
For example, that Kipram Credit Union, we've done that sign.
That's existing two blocks down the street in the Kaiser
Shadeland buildings.
And the legit casino, that might have been from another sign
program.
And we were trying to show a logo that
was representative of being very horizontal and wide.
because I would guess most of the tenants
are going to want to put it on the end in that 25 square foot
spot.
But you may have a tenant that has a logo that's, you know,
it's a horizontal logo.
And it's not a good fit for that 25 square foot space.
So I think what we tried to do is show something
that would fit in that wider 50 square foot sign area box.
Though I don't anticipate in reality
A lot of people will be putting logos up there because most people they're logos they oriented for letterhead for websites and they're not very horizontal and can you explain on the directory signs what how you manage with for logos and tenants all on that limited space and I believe there was a note in the report from staff about some line could you clarify that.
That was for the tenant monument signs.
Yeah, these ones.
Or they're going to have the four, yeah.
We were just assuming if they have four tenants
and they use the four panel option,
then we just don't want the signage to be too crammed in.
So there's some sort of separation
between each tenant name.
So some sort of line to create a separation between the names.
So there, we're just outlining again possible sign areas,
depending on how many tenants might be on the monument sign,
based on how many are in the building.
I think all the buildings now, or the majority of them,
I think maybe have one tenant name on them,
with the exception of the one there on the bottom left,
where you see Thomas Dahl and Boomerang Health Care.
There's multiple tenants in that building.
And that monument is for two buildings, not for one building.
So we wanted to be able to accommodate more spaces
on the monument signs.
so that monument you'll see it's for building 165 on the left
and for 175 on the right.
So it's a shared monument.
So theoretically you could have up to on that monument
two tenants in building 165
and two tenants in building 175.
And I believe there's one other monument that's shared
and the others are just, they're standalone
for the buildings.
Sorry, one more question maybe.
As I look at the signage plan,
I'm having a hard time seeing where the elevation that we were just looking at with the 25s
and 250s actually occurs because on building 165 it looks like there's 250 foot signs.
Then on building 175 there's two signs also really close to each other,
neither at the corner.
185 is showing one sign, 205 is showing one sign.
Am I reading that right?
Yeah, so if you're looking at the site map here,
is there one garden?
Yeah.
So basically, if you look at the green dots and the orange dots
here, right?
They represent the 25 square foot and the 50.
You'll see the colors there.
So if you're looking at building 165, so on the far left,
you've got an address number there.
And then on the far right, you've
got an address number there as well.
So what's being proposed on building 165
is to 50-foot, 250 square foot building sign areas
that are possible on that building.
And it's not to say that the logo
might only be 25 square feet,
it's just saying that the possible sign area
is up to 50 square feet.
If somebody doesn't have a real horizontal logo,
they're constrained on the height.
So even though that shows those are possibly
up to 50 square feet,
In reality, they're probably gonna be closer
to maybe 25 square feet like the ones on the end.
But not all the buildings have that available to it
on the end or on some of the buildings it's not visible.
So we didn't show it.
So if you look at building 175,
so there you've got the address number
on the far left of the building line.
It's not visible on the far right from the parking lot.
So we're not showing anything there.
So the only thing that's really visible
from the parking lot area are those two possible 50 foot bands so it building at building 175 though
what you're you have not illustrated it but what you're saying is there could be a building number
then a 50 foot sign and then another 50 foot sign right next to it yeah those are the those
are the only two so it'd be like 100 feet a sign uh if it's maxed out in its clarity correct correct
And so before us is a is a request that once it leaves this room people could do whatever they want as long as they stay
Within that request and I believe that's what you're proposing is a hundred feet of signage
almost
125 feet of signage
Right between the number of the building and then 250 foot signs right next to each other
Well, it could be a maximum the two signs maximum could equal a hundred square right next to each other at that
175 and at 215, right? Correct, correct. So building 185
It's got an address number on the right side
So on the far left you could have a 25 square foot and then adjacent to that you could have a 50
Those are the only two ones that would make sense on that building just because of the trees and the monuments there
So we're not trying to over sign the buildings. We're only
We're only we're you know on both of those buildings
We're only asking for two possible tenant signs and there are two story office buildings
So, it's, you know, we're asking for one sign per floor, which is, you know, it's well
within the sign criteria or the sign ordinance.
On Building 185, we're asking for 125 square foot sign and 150 square foot sign possibly.
And that's the same as Building 205.
And then building 215, that would be similar to building 175
where there's only two signs up to 50 square feet,
and building 225 is the only one
that we're showing more than three signs,
because there are more than two signs.
That building, 225, we're showing three.
We're showing the 25 on the far right,
and then the 250 square foot areas.
the concern that on the 175 or 215 building that one tenant might take both 50 square foot things
and we'll just have a big sign? I mean I think my general concern is that you know we don't
want Walla Creek to look like a NASCAR and have all these signs all over every building and
those are very close together and it is possible I suppose I mean why would someone take 100 feet
to signage but they probably they could I suppose I you know I think you know I
are we in the comment period or no no I just was asking to see if we needed to
ask further questions or does anyone need more clarity from the applicant but
to respond your question though there wouldn't be one sign that takes up 100
square feet so each sign area is allocated for for one tenant for one
sign so that's not contemplated where they could take up both spans for one
sign just because that space is allocated for it each sign areas just for
one sign okay okay any other questions of the applicant okay then we'll move to
Do public comment on this item?
Okay, seeing none, now we move to our discussion
and potentially for a motion.
We'd like to start.
You go ahead and start.
You have a lot of questions and opinions.
Which I like.
I, look, I appreciate what everybody's trying to do
and I understand that in the current market
that people are looking to attract tenants
And somehow signage equates to more attractability
in terms of leasing real estate.
But, you know, as I mentioned previously,
I think we have to guard against excessive signage
in all cases, given how beautiful Walnut Creek is.
And you know, I think that there's an obligation
for us to look at, you know,
even in a building as fundamental as maybe these are,
what's the architectural intent of the building?
And, you know, where should signage be placed?
I don't think that any blank space on any piece of architecture is a canvas, right?
I think you know, we gotta be judicious about that. So
you know, I think that if the 25 foot zones are
sort of
demarcated as a you know
Identification signage of building numbers and things like that. Is it really necessary to have another sign also occupying that location?
Or can we just say stay within the body of the building and give yourself those 50 foot zones?
and those can be utilized you know certainly on on the long elevations where you have potentially
a building number a 25 foot sign and 250 foot signs all across one elevation
you know with respect to the inside buildings 175 and 215 I understand the problem there
they're not visible you know they're buried in in the back you know it just seems like a lot of
Signage by the time you're done if every tenant took a sign, you know, you wouldn't have any facia left, right?
those are my comments as far as the other signs that
You know the monument signs that the signage at the ground
You know, I I I don't know that your directional signage is that clear?
But you know, I have no fundamental objection to replacing what's there
But I don't know if the font size and those arrows carrots or whatever they are are as clear for people as maybe they could be
But I guess that's not my job to design. So I'm just gonna stick to the
Concerns of the of the architecture and the and the impression it gives to the community
Okay, Carlos. So no, I mean my my only but this was already answered
I mean we're within the square footage is allowed per building
We're not exceeding
In any way the square footage is right. I don't have any other comments. Okay, well, I think you covered it
I I appreciate your point. I do think that we need to be mindful of the architecture
I've also been to this particular business park and it is a little tricky to navigate. So I don't
Have a ton of objection to having signs
I think it does help have some kind of like branding to know where you're going and I know that it's facing more
Internally to you know the business park orientation of the shade lens, so I think
It's an improvement to what's there now
so with that is anyone interested in
Making a motion any stipulations that we felt like we wanted to incorporate
for this I
I guess I would the 25 foot zone is bothering me, you know, I'll just say I I guess I could say, you know
I'd be open to more
Keeping the signage away from the corner
Maybe would be a good idea
But you know, I defer to my fellow commissioners for your opinions
Well, I I agree with your comment that a hundred feet of sign is is a lot of sign
I mean, looking at this, what just spitballing,
I mean, what would we do to this?
I mean, I think just going across the board,
I think, if I'm reading this right,
so looking at the right on 225,
those two orange signs there,
what's the practical length of those signs?
Is that 50 feet or is it 25?
The actual width of them?
Yeah, I mean, what are we saying here?
what's being asked for.
That's a great question.
I believe it is.
So if you look on the data.
20 feet.
20 feet, apparently.
So the dimensions are on page five and six of the program.
So on page five, you've got eight feet, 10 inches,
for the smaller sign.
That's the CHI program example.
And the whole panel is sort of 12 feet.
OK, so that's?
And that's the short panel.
on the end of the building those are the short ones on the end of the building so
larger one is
Possibly 17 feet of a 20 foot wide area and these these areas are all broken up with
With almost like carriage bolts
So the areas are defined and the sign areas that we're proposing we're centering the sign in those areas
And to answer your question, you're not asking me,
but I'll give you some feedback if you would allow.
Yeah, that's what we're trying to get to.
So you're concerned about the 25 square foot signs
on the ends of the building.
Personally, I think those look better
than the 50 square foot signs that are on the inside,
because I just think aesthetically,
it just symmetrically balances the building out, right?
You've got an address sign on one,
you've got a logo sign on the other.
So to me, it's intuitive that if I had a choice
and I had a logo that would fit within that 25 square foot
area, and I had a choice to put it
on the end of the building or inset a little,
I would always choose the very outside.
Because I think it would look better.
And visibility, it's probably a little bit better.
So are you giving us the option to only do the 25 foot zone?
I'm not proposing.
Because I might agree with you, but the point
Is that it could be all those locations, right?
Right.
Well, you've got, we're basically asking
for two signs per building,
with the exception of building 225,
where we're showing three possible sign locations.
So all we're asking for is for one sign per floor.
It's a two floor building.
Right.
I don't think that in any way would,
if everybody used the signs that we're requesting,
I don't think it would look over signed.
I don't think it would look busy.
It's a very small field of view when you're
in that parking lot, like Ms. Case was noting,
because she had been there before.
You're not seeing any of the signs from Ignacio Valley.
You probably really wouldn't see them
on Landon Lane until you pull up
and you're getting close to the buildings.
They're not tall signs.
They're two feet, 10 inches tall max.
So most people's logos, they have large fonts, small fonts.
They're not going to make signs.
And I think it's going to be tasteful,
and I think it's going to be an aesthetic improvement.
And it's not going to look retail-y.
It's not a retail park.
It's an office park.
Most of the tenants that are in there,
they have muted colors in their logos.
You know, the, so these, if you look at Curtis,
so I'm just going back to this location map.
So Curtis, their letters are black.
Yeah, no, I appreciate that, but we can assume.
We don't know.
I don't understand, I understand.
All right, I appreciate what you're trying to do.
I have no amendments to this.
Okay, I did have actually one more quick question.
Sorry to keep reopening this,
but are the address numbers being done all together at once,
or is it only when the buildings are leased
their sign improvements? We would only do them all collectively if we were gonna
do them, otherwise it would look pretty odd. Right. The landlord may decide to do the
address numbers after when the buildings are leased or sold. I'm not sure.
This is sort of our our request for what we would like. They would like to pursue
the address numbers put them all up and the tenant signs would probably come
phase by phase piece by piece depending on who buys the buildings when they buy
them who the tenants are when the buildings are leased but to answer your
question absolutely we wouldn't do the address numbers unless we did them all
at the same time great okay so we talked ourselves around a little bit but it
sounded like we landed on maybe being willing to make a motion with the
stipulations listed in the staff report? I said that with a question mark on the
end. I'm gonna make a motion to approve the project based on the conditions and
stipulations lifted in the staff report. I second it. Can we do a roll call please?
Chair Case? Yes. Commissioner Valia? Yes. Vice Chair Newsom? Yes. Commissioner
One Garden yes motion passes all right motion passes so that closes our public
hearings for this evening so now we'll move on to Commission considerations so
this is items that are not required to be publicly noticed but where there is a
formal staff presentation is there anything for this evening you're up
Commission considerations the only thing I really have is that our next meeting I
believe is going to be canceled. And that would be May 1st, May Day. And also, and I
mentioned this earlier, but there's chances are that the decision made by
the DRC at their last meeting would be appealed in regards to the skyline
signs. We'll keep you updated on that.
to. No. I missed one meeting. Okay, commission member and staff reports or announcements.
So anything from commissioners? I will be gone for a chunk of May. So don't hate me.
I feel like I'm missing a lot, but I usually don't miss any. Then I'm around for a while.
So the two meetings in May are the first and the 15th.
15th, I will be gone.
You'll be out.
Mm-hmm.
Chip, is Mayday confirmed, or you said it's likely?
It's likely.
Likely.
When, about a, will we get notice on that?
Well, I'll inform you.
There's nothing official, but I can let you know.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay, we are adjourned.
Thanks, everyone.
Thank you.