Commissioner Kwok present Commissioner Ward here Commissioner Klopp here
Commissioner Reiser here Commissioner Nathan here Vice Chair Anderson here
Chair Strongman here and moving on to the consent calendar do we have a minute
anything on the consent calendar I do not believe we have anything on the consent
calendar thank you we'll move on to public communications this is the part of
the meeting where any member of the public could comment on anything at all except that
is on the agenda. So do we have any member of the public who would like to make a comment?
Seeing none, we will move on to public hearings and we're actually going to reverse
the public hearings we will do the the plaza appeal last well now we'll start out with the
4b um and we will first of all ask have we have anybody have any ex parte communications on any
of the projects we're hearing tonight seeing none no ex parte but i have a um i'm on the recusal
map for the MSP. Okay. So I'll be recusing myself. Thank you. And I'd like to say that I was looking
at the item 4A viewing the building from Google street maps to see the vantage points from the
680 freeway. Okay, thank you. So we'll move on to 4B. It is the Chanderi new single family
residence. Is there any member of the public who would like to make a comment on this?
Seeing none, we will continue this item to August 22nd, 2024.
And just for the record that the public hearing was opened?
Yes.
And it's continued to that date?
Yes.
And moving on to item 4C, consistency determination under government code 65402,
General Plan.
Would the staff start with a presentation on that, please?
evening commissioners my name is alex wong senior engineer with the capital improvement program
so this item is for a capital improvement project um this project will require acquisition of
existing sidewalk located on private property for construction of the project staff is recommending
that the planning commission find the potential acquisitions to be consistent with the city's
adopted general plan so site description so this um the walnut boulevard sidewalk
at Walnut Heights Elementary Project is part of the city's adopted 24-25 capital budget
to install sidewalk on Walnut Boulevard between Fraser Drive and Bellows Court, as shown in
a diagram on the left. A portion of the existing sidewalk at 4008 and 4016 Walnut Boulevard
is located on private property. The sidewalk is required to be removed and replaced with
a wider sidewalk at this location to allow for safer pedestrian crossing at this intersection.
The two properties, where the city is acquiring real property, is located on the north side
of Walnut Boulevard across from Fraser Drive.
These properties are zoned as single family residential hour 15 as shown on the map on
the bottom right.
So project description.
This project starts at Fraser Drive on Walnut Boulevard with a new bulbed-out intersection.
The bulb-out will reduce the traffic lane width, reducing crossing distance for pedestrians
and improved visibility, allowing a safer crossing.
The new sidewalk will extend east
on the north side of Walnut Boulevard
to Walnut Heights Elementary,
extending to the county border at Bellows Court.
So you can see on the diagram there on the right,
on the left is the blown up of the intersection
of Fraser and Walnut Boulevard.
Top right there is a more blown up,
more far out view of that intersection,
including a sidewalk that extends east
on the north side of Walnut Boulevard.
As you follow down in the second diagram,
it goes up the hill toward Walnut Heights Elementary.
The new sidewalk will extend along the frontage
of the school, extending all the way to Bellows Court
to the city limit, to the county limits.
So the acquisitions.
So here are the two plat maps of the two properties.
The acquisition at 4008 Walnut Boulevard
includes 267 square feet of property along the frontage.
And at 4016 Walnut Boulevard includes 120 square foot
of the property along the frontage.
These two properties are located adjacent
to the Fraser Drive bow belt and removal of the sidewalk
is needed for construction of these bow belts.
So CEQA, so this project is exempt from CEQA.
Section 15301c, Class 1, Existing Facilities, General Exemption for projects with negligible
or no expansion of existing facilities, and 15061b3, as project does not have potential
to cause significant effects on the environment.
So certain goals and policy of the general plan encourage city efforts to expand sidewalk
in the vicinity of school areas.
There are no goals or policies in the general plan that would prohibit this project.
This project meets goals for goal 3, maintain a transportation network that provides mobility
for all ages and abilities for all and for all areas of the community.
And also action 3.1.4 as development and development occurs requires street right away dedications
and improvements to the local road network consistent with adopted street standards.
So staff recommends that the planning commission move to adopt a resolution making findings
determining that both of the following actions are in conformance with the city of Walnut
Creek's adopted general plan in accordance with provision of state planning law, government
code 65402, one, the potential acquisition of a 267 square foot strip of real property
located at the front edge of 4008 Walnut Boulevard, and two, the potential acquisition of 120
a foot strip of real property located at 40161 Boulevard.
And that concludes the presentation.
I'm available for any questions you may have.
Thank you for your presentation.
Does any commissioners have questions?
And staff has provided an errata sheet for minor changes
to the, minor correction to the staff report and resolution.
I see no questions.
Thank you for presentation.
We'll now open it up for public comment.
Is there any member of the public would like to comment
on this item. Seeing none we will close public comments and bring it back to the
Commission for comments or possibly a motion.
Actually I thought of a question I wanted to ask you.
These little slivers of land are being purchased by the city from the property
owners. Are they willing sellers? They're appraised and there's a cost
associated with the purchase. Okay and the seller's willing to sell it.
Might have to anyway but they're okay thank you. Any other questions or
comments or a motion? Would you bring back the last slide please?
Yeah Commissioner Ward. Okay so I'll move that we adopt the resolution making
findings determining that both of the actions are in conformity of the City of
Walnut Creek adopt a general plan as set forth in the resolution that we've been
presented with as written second two seconds Steve please call the roll
please Commissioner quack yes Commissioner Ward yes Commissioner
clock yes Commissioner Reiser yes mr. Nathan yes Vice Chair Anderson yes chair
Strongman yes motion passes thank you and moving on to the plaza MSP continued
June 13th Plan to Commission meeting it's yes less Mr. Commissioner Reiser
will be recusing himself for this let him vacate them the room first
Staff doesn't have any reports at the end so okay enjoy the evening
Go ahead with your presentation
Well, thank you chair strongmen and commissioners staff has prepared a presentation for tonight. Good evening. My name is Stephen Cook
I'm an assistant planner with the city before use an appeal of a master sign program located at 1331
1333 North, California Boulevard
For some site context the site is located in the downtown core area of the city
and is bounded by Bonanza Street to the north, North California Boulevard to the east,
and Mount Diablo Boulevard to the south. Furthermore, the property contains two
existing seven-story commercial office buildings. Previously the project was reviewed by the Design
Review Commission. The DRC determined that the project was exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
guidelines sections 15-301 class 1 existing facilities.
Additionally, the DRC reviewed and approved the master sign program subject
to the revisions that included limiting the number of requested
freestanding signs and eliminating skyline signs completely.
Within the required 10-day period, the applicant submitted an appeal
for reconsideration by the Planning Commission regarding their original
requests. As this is a de novo hearing, the Planning
Commission may affirm, modify, or reverse the DRC's decision.
The Planning Commission may also adopt additional conditions if needed.
The first appeal request by the applicant is regarding freestanding signs.
The site contains two existing freestanding signs, as shown as P1 and P2.
The MSP is requesting three new additional freestanding signs, as shown as M1, M2, and
M3.
The sign ordinance allows one freestanding sign per one street frontage.
Therefore, this total request for five freestanding signs requires a sign ordinance exception
to allow additional freestanding signs beyond the allowable limit at the site.
Staff initially recommended approval to the DRC for all three freestanding signs.
However, although the DRC approved the location of all three new freestanding signs, the DRC
the master sign program to choose between M1 and M2 at the intersection of Mount Diablo and North
California. The applicant has appealed this decision and wishes to be reconsidered for
the original proposal of having both M1 and M2 without having to choose between both freesign
signs. The second appeal request by the applicant is regarding skyline signs. The site does not
contain any existing skyline signs. The MSP is requesting four new skyline signs with six
possible locations, three per each building. The sign ordinance allows signs beyond 25 feet in height
if all required code findings can be made. However, the proposed skyline signs will not
and therefore requires a sign ordinance exception to allow for a height increase.
Staff initially recommend recommended approval to the DRC as a means for the DRC to consider
skyline signs on major arterial streets, which is North California and Mount Diablo.
Additionally, staff recommended the DRC
to consider conditions that limit placement locations
as the plans illustrate the skyline signs
as having only approximate locations.
However, the DRC determined
that the proposed skyline signs do not meet any
of the required code findings for a height increase
and denied the sign ordinance exception.
The applicant has appealed this decision and wishes
to be reconsidered for the original proposal
of four skyline signs, six locations, so three per each building but with a limit of two
skyline signs per each building.
To summarize the appeal request, the applicant is proposing three new freestanding signs
for a total of five which will require a sign ordinance exception to increase the number
of allowable freestanding signs for the site.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing four skyline signs that will require a sign ordinance
exception as the required findings for height increase beyond 25 feet cannot be made.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission to move to determine the project is exempt from
CEQA for Section 15-301 existing facilities and consider adopting the draft resolution
in Attachment 1 to approve the applicant's appeal request or consider adopting the draft
resolution in Attachment 2 to uphold the DRC's decision.
That concludes the presentation.
Staff is available for any questions.
Thank you for your presentation.
Commissioners, who would like to ask questions?
Commissioner Anderson.
I have a couple.
It says that the, I'm trying to understand the underlying requirements here.
It says that as we're getting to the skyline signs,
business identified by the sign must occupy all floor space
adjacent to the wall upon which the sign is to be placed
from the ground to the top of the sign.
So in other words, if it's on the fourth floor,
it has to occupy all four floors?
That's correct.
And that's one of the findings that this signage proposal
not meet and, therefore, requires a sign exception to be approved with the understanding that
not all allowable code findings can be made.
So it would be an exception to that finding.
Okay.
So do you know the rationale for requiring so much space to deserve a sign?
Is it just to reduce the number of signs that can be put up or...?
I'm unsure of the intention, I just know that that's one of the regulations for sign
ordinance.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Also relating to skyline signs, the comparison was made to the signs that were allowed in
the Golden Triangle buildings, and it indicated, now, were those also unable to make the findings?
Yes, this would be similar to those approvals.
those approvals and the rationale was given to distinguish the two was that
those signs would be visible from 680 and BART. Is that the the main
purpose of the skyline signs they'd be visible from highways and BARTs as
opposed to streets? That's correct. That was one of the considerations of that
previous approval that considered visibility from the I-680 visibility
from the BART station as a reason for the Design Review Commission to approve
the Skyline signs. This proposal is sort of building off that precedent by
potentially allowing Arterial Street, so Mount Diablo, and North California to
also be reasons for the approval of Skyline signs for increased visibility
to pedestrians or vehicles.
So if we go along with the design review proposal on this, that would suggest that
in the future, if your assignment is visible from the highway or BART, then that's fine.
If it's just the street, probably not.
That's correct.
And that was also a concern of the Design Review Commission of establishing precedent.
Okay.
And then there was one last question.
It says that as far as the freestanding signs and having allowing four, but not five, it
says that they felt reducing the amount of additional freestanding signs was more appropriate
for the site.
It doesn't say why it would be more appropriate to have four than five.
Is that just a question of the street frontages,
having four street frontages?
I believe the Design Review Commission stated
that the reasoning for limiting either choosing
M1 or M2's freestanding sign was to reduce oversaturation
of freestanding signs on an intersection,
which led them to apply this condition
of choosing either M1 or M2 at approval.
Okay, and I'm getting kind of into the weeds here,
but is the idea behind having four street frontages
and therefore four signs of allowable,
is the implication there should be one
on each of those streets?
Yes, that's what our current sign ordinance requires.
Or could it be four on one side and none of the others?
Yeah, one per street front.
One per street front.
So, given that, I'm wondering why,
since M2 is a second sign facing Northern California Boulevard,
but M1 is the only sign facing Mount Diablo Boulevard.
It seemed that M1 would be allowed, but M2 wouldn't.
But why are they giving a choice there?
If you want to have one sign on each frontage?
Yeah, I'm unsure.
I think that was the design review's compromise
of not being able to really determine
whether M1 or M2 is more appropriate.
So they gave the choice of the applicant
to choose between M1 and M2.
Okay, thanks.
Other questions?
Commissioner Ward.
Hi, can you explain just a little more specifically
where the skyline signs are actually located?
Because when I think of that,
I think of once they're on the top,
very, very tall skyscraper kind of buildings
and that is not what we're looking at here
as far as I understand from the photographs
that are mocked up and more just over the entryway signs
to the doors to the building itself, is that correct?
So the proposed plans that were provided
indicated that the sign locations were approximate.
So staff had recommended to the design review commission
to consider limitations for placement,
like a minimum height or a maximum height,
but ultimately the signs were just outright denied.
So those issues also could be deliberated.
So they didn't really get to exactly
where they'd be located as to,
I mean, because it's a pretty tall building,
it's one of the biggest in our downtown area, right?
So we're not necessarily, we don't necessarily know
whether it's at the very top of that building
or whether it's at the lower locations
that the drawings suggest, is that correct?
I believe Steven might have a slide.
there's one that's higher but the rest are lower
or I'm just confused as to where they're proposing
to put them.
Yeah, so, okay.
So the location of where the skyline signs
will be oriented on the buildings wasn't specified,
so at this point the plans don't indicate specifically
where, however the applicant is here to date
and I might defer that question if they would want
provide a bit more information about intentions of where the signage placement might be located
or interested areas of where it might be located.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the Commission can set limitations in terms of height because it's a sign exception
request, correct?
That's correct.
The Commission can set height limitations and location limitations.
Other questions?
Yes.
I had a question regarding the brushed color, the aluminum.
It seems like there was, I could be wrong, but when you flip through it quickly it almost
seems like it's blending into the actual color of the building, almost like it's trying to
emulate the color of the building.
then have that little element of polished look if you will with that kind
of aluminum. I know they haven't defined the exact location of the skyline but
are the materials and the colors similar to what we're seeing like there's not
going to be a red or a yellow something super bright the colors that we're
seeing on it can you go I think there was a slide with the did I get that
wrong or maybe was pardon me yeah so on the proposed or the DRC approved plans
if you reference page p4 right it says brushed letters on painted backer right
and so then it shows the laser cut the acrylic the painted finish and it and
And then P5 shows it beautifully
where they kind of overlay schematically
what that looks like with that color,
even the different shades of the gray,
and you can see that pop.
I'd be curious, especially since they only,
they're not allowing M1 and M2,
just M1 or two, then M3 per the,
I'm doing this by memory, right?
And then M3 is, and I don't know if this is a question
for the project proponent,
but these are the colors that we would be seeing, correct?
That's correct, that's the materials and colors proposed.
Okay, so that beveled on the edges,
the aluminum, the different shades,
but we're looking at this kind of gray
that's kind of blending somewhat
with the colors of the building.
The other thing I wanted to ask about the signs,
because material actually matters
when you're driving or looking right to see the eye.
I'm getting the sense that some of the concern
is about it not blending
while the project proponent obviously wants something
where you have way finding.
And so it's about having that medium.
So what I was gonna ask is for the skyline sign,
which I see, because I first, when I first read it,
I thought it was literally going to be like on sticks
on top, like waving.
But when I looked actually in the staff report,
I realized, okay, this is actually on the edge
of the building.
So what I was gonna ask you is, is it flush?
Is it sticking out?
Is it lighted up from behind?
Like, is it something that if you're trying to use it
as a way finding, you'd find it.
Or, do you know what I mean?
I'm trying to kind of distinguish the way finding
versus the, oh, that's an eyesore.
Because I don't, I'm hope, I think that,
and this is conjecture, but I would think
that that was why we put the ordinance in place,
was for things not to be an eyesore,
but to kind of blend beautifully.
But then way finding has become very important,
especially as people are trying to find their way around
and get business to this area.
Do you know?
This is something we can ask the.
Yeah, I might, I might,
I would defer that question for design choices
to the applicant.
I just wanted to note that if you look at attachment six,
the 36 pages, the 35th page has a picture
of what presumably is anticipated
for the signage.
I know.
I just can't tell if it's like, it looks like black text to me.
Yeah.
It's just photoshopped on there.
Right, because it's photoshopped.
But it's not consistent with the other one
that was that aluminum, right, blended look.
So that's why I got confused.
Those are two completely different colors.
Right.
So I think that would be a question for me.
OK.
any other questions for staff right now anybody yes I think okay so just one
clarification leading into the discussion eventually so skyline signs
are defined as anything which is 25 feet above the ground as soon as we exceed
25 feet we're talking about skyline signs regardless of the placement on the
side of the building that's correct okay all right thank you that's great thank
you and I believe we'll open the public hearing right now and start with the
applicant. Hello everyone I'm Ted Luthan from Ross Luthan Creative. I represent
the owners and am the applicant. First of all I'd like to thank you for all your
time. I would like to especially thank Stephen for his time and support. We've
been working on this a long time and it's it's been a great process and so
we're excited to be here and talk a little bit about what we are proposing
here. It really boils down to these two issues, and what we've got here is we've got two very
large buildings, and we're asking for some freestanding signs and some skyline signs.
The freestanding signs that we have here, the two existing ones, are really at the entrances
to the parking garages. They don't really work as monument signs. They don't promote
tenants. And if you look at what we've proposed, we proposed to kind of remove
tenant names off of them and really kind of focus on addresses and who can park
where. So the sign that's on Mount Diablo, that's really an entrance, an employee
entrance to the parking garage. The public entrance is around the backside.
And so that's the one where I think we do have a space for a tenant name, but
But it's mostly address driven.
So our argument to the designer review board was, we've got three frontages, we've got
two buildings, we think we should be entitled to three signs, the two existing signs are
really directional in nature, and these signs are not huge, they're, you know, they're 50
square feet, I think.
So 10 feet by 5 feet, you know, twice the size of a queen size mattress sort of size.
And they are the materials we chose to speak to materials.
We're working with metallic grays, silvers.
There's some silver banding on the existing building that we're tying to.
The existing monument signs use kind of a brushed silver finish.
So we're connecting to that.
We want it to look corporate, so we're not going for retail.
We're not allowing color.
So Schwab can't come here with blue.
They're going to come with a metallic silver.
So even national brands are going to be, it's going to be tailored and finished, just like
these buildings.
These buildings are very tight.
They've been here since, I don't know, I'm guessing the mid 80s, something like that.
And they're pristine.
So that's what we want to maintain.
We want to maintain really clean, crisp, corporate looking signage.
So we're really thinking that the M1 and the M2, those are one goes for the 1331 building,
goes to the 1333. The M3 is a unique animal in that there is a strange little space where
Scott Seafood used to be that has its own entry, doesn't go in through the lobbies
of these buildings. And so that was really the intent with M3 is that it could potentially
be another sort of retail, more of a retail business like Scott Seafood was, as opposed
to the kind of corporate businesses in the rest of the buildings. And they struggled
with signage there. They built a canopy that came out so that they could get
signage. So we said rather than having them build some appendage onto the
building like the last tenant had done, let's provide them some space but do it
in the vocabulary of the rest of the signs. Tight, tailored, nice and clean. So
that's what M3 is all about. So that's that's kind of our our justification for
the way find I mean the monument signs. Seems reasonable at one each and then
one for this unique condition. We've got three frontages. Let's treat the other two existing
ones as directional signs and not really as monument signs because they don't really function
that way.
And then, moving on to the skyline signs. So, we worked on the Golden Triangle project when
we got that entitlement. And there was concern when that was approved that it would open
in this Pandora's box of signage.
And that was, I'm guessing five years ago?
Something like that?
And there are no signs.
There's no skyline signs up there.
So that hasn't resulted in this plethora of signs
and the sign pollution and this sort of thing
that some people were concerned about.
And I think the reason for that is,
these signs are being used to entice
high quality businesses and employers.
And so the owners are holding those things
are valuable and they're going to use them to either entice a really good tenant to stay
or entice a really good new tenant to come. And that's why you're not seeing this, you know,
disaster of signs, you know, happening in the world. And I think the same thing is going to
happen here. You know, we've got two big buildings. We're asking for two signs on each building.
We're open to, you know, exactly if you want to restrict height, you know, that's not that
important to us. I think the important thing would be that we do get them up above the tree line at
that they are effective, but I don't know that they have to go on the top band of the building
or anything like that. The idea behind those is that they are individual letters, they are
dimensional, so they're just like a retail letter, like a letter you see on Main Street for a
restaurant or the piano shop or those sorts of things. Internally lit, they all use a warm white,
not a bright white, they're all on dimmers so that they can be dimmed. They're all required to be on
timers. If you want to set the times, we'd be open to having some sort of timing regulations associated
with them, especially the ones that are facing, I guess, east and maybe the ones heading north.
There might be some residential communities that might be impacted there that we might be concerned
about. But really the the impetus behind the skyline signs and even the monument
signs is that back when these buildings were built the buildings were the
prestige. Those buildings were cool places. They still are and back in those
days small businesses were you know Smith and Smith consulting. They weren't
national brands and so being in a building with prestige is important and
And the business landscape's changed.
And now the tenants in those buildings
are often national brands.
National brands like their name out there.
They like to be recognized where they are.
So I think what's really driving this
and what drove the Golden Triangle
is the changing business
and the changing leasing environment
and trying to respond to the needs of today's tenants
and wanting to keep up with those needs.
We want those tenants to come here.
we want those employers to come here
and not look to other places
because they might have more enticing signage criteria.
And signage is important.
I mean, it kind of sounds silly,
but signage is important, especially in national brands.
So it's really just kind of about keeping up
with the leasing environment
and making sure that these buildings stay full
because these buildings really are,
they were when they were built
and I think they really still are
the economic engines of this town.
So I think that's important.
And I am available for questions.
Thank you.
Questions?
Start out to the end.
All right, so it sounds like thank you so much
for your presentation.
It was very informative.
It helps me understand a little bit more
of the background of the work that you've done
and what you're doing here with us today.
So thank you so much for that.
I did want to ask, so you touched a little bit
upon how the tenants of the building
went from smaller tenants that were probably occupied
like several smaller spaces inside the tower.
But now we're looking at like one or two
or maybe three very large tenants
that may have pretty good recognition
that are looking that maybe you're considering
the building as part of their location.
And so that's kind of the process
from small tenants to large tenants.
Does it tend to go in cyclical phases
from like small to large, back to smaller?
or is it always kind of one direction where it's like,
buildings tend to start with small tenants
and then eventually migrate to large tenants
and that's kind of the end of it?
I think the, I don't necessarily have the data
to back this up, but I think the,
like I said, when these buildings were first built,
I think they were probably occupied
by a lot more tenants than they have now.
And I think our two gentlemen here
could probably answer that,
but I'm guessing that the trend has been
to fewer tenants occupying larger spaces.
And I think that is probably the goal
of the owners of those buildings is fewer larger tenants.
And we've seen, I come from the architecture
and design background, and I've seen
kind of consolidation of that,
that big groups are buying up smaller firms
and small businesses are becoming affiliated,
a small financial consulting firm
becomes affiliated with Schwab or Fidelity
or takes on that brand.
And I think that's what's been happening
kind of the last 30 or 40 years.
And so a lot of the businesses that are in there now,
even the small businesses, even the businesses with,
I don't know, you know,
that are leasing hundreds of square feet, not thousands,
probably associated with national brands of some sort.
All right, thank you.
Mm-hmm.
Thanks.
Commissioner Ward.
Okay, so I'll repeat my question regarding my confusion
as to where exactly you want your guideline signs
to be located.
Yeah.
your lovely Photoshop photos here.
And I know those are suggestions,
but that's basically what you're asking for,
some sort of.
Yeah, on that T15 page, if you look at the elevations,
I think the elevations all showed them
at the tops of the buildings.
But if you look at the photos,
the two don't necessarily agree.
I actually like the positioning of the photographs
better than the elevations.
I think getting them a little bit lower
on the buildings makes sense.
especially at the corner of North California
and Mount Diablo there.
But yeah, if you wanted to make some stipulations
that say they go between here and here,
that would be fine with us, yeah.
Well, obviously, I'm not the one to micromanage that,
but so would you say that you're trying to have people
who are driving by be able to see them?
Because you wouldn't want them too high then,
or are you trying to have a longer viewpoint
in terms of people looking at them?
I think for the North California southbound,
I think that's a little bit more of a distant view.
So I think that makes sense to be in one of the top two
floors of the building.
I think for the Mount Diablo eastbound
coming from the freeway, same thing.
I think top two floors of the building there make sense.
I think at the corner of North California, Mount Diablo,
where those come together,
I think, you know, bringing them down to the, you know,
kind of those middle levels probably makes sense
just because I think that is a little bit
more intimate viewing, a little less distant viewing.
So would it be like on the 1331 building,
the one on Mount Diablo, one, two, three, four,
you know, the fifth floor and the other one,
one, two, three, fourth floor of the North California.
Okay, great, that's very helpful.
I appreciate that, thank you.
Thank you.
Hi again, thank you for coming and answering all our questions, it's very much appreciated.
I have a question about the freestanding signs.
So one of the things in my brain says there are two different buildings, so maybe it makes
sense to have two different signs.
But how much actual information is on the sign that will help facilitate wayfinding?
Because it doesn't seem, as you said, like they're large.
it's not gonna say like these 20 people are in this building. No, in fact, we are
limiting it to a couple. Two tenants per sign. Two tenants. Two tenants per sign. And we
have a fairly large on the sign, you know, people are GPS oriented so and so
fairly large on each sign is a 1331 and a 1333 because we also want to make
that connection. So we want someone going I'm looking for Fidelity there in 1330
boom, there it is, 1333, oh, there's their name, kind of that double confirmation.
So that's why we're dedicating quite a bit of the space on the sign to the address and
then space for two tenants.
And again, a lot of these tenants are kind of national brands.
You don't actually need to read them, it's not like reading, you know, Smith & Associates.
You're going to see Schwab or you're going to see Fidelity, you're going to see a name
you're going to be competition for who gets on which sign he's gentleman hope
so okay thank you that helps sorry somebody asked anybody a question I
forgot my own um oh yes ah so given for the skyline signs since you have to be
You know, 25 feet and above, somewhere up in that range.
You're talking about third floor, fourth floor, fifth floor of the sign, and it requires
that all of the space beneath be occupied by that tenant.
How many tenants do you have that would qualify for a sign like that that would occupy three
or four floors?
We're actually proposing to disconnect those two things.
So we're proposing that the sign could be for a tenant anywhere in the building.
So the sign isn't necessarily on the tenant's wall.
And that's kind of how skyline signs work in general, is that the name at the top, you
know, the U.S. bank building at the top of the building, the U.S. bank isn't necessarily
in the entire building, they may be on the, you know, middle floors, but they're the most
important tenants, so they get their name at the top.
That sort of thing.
So, yeah, we're proposing to disconnect those two things.
And I think that's one of the reasons for the sign exception, is that we don't meet
that requirement.
We'd love to get big tenants like that, that, you know, took the whole building or took
a big part of the building.
That was part of the plan.
You have to take the first four floors if you want your name on the building.
Again these gentlemen would love that.
Yeah.
But that is one of the challenges with these buildings too, is that every floor plate's
different. And as the workplace has been controlled by larger players, they want everything to
be the same. And so, you know, sometimes that can be a challenge for them to move into these
types of buildings because every floor plate's a little different. They can't plug in their
standard work space plans.
OK, thank you, go for it.
I had thoughts on you.
You asked us to you would rather have us be able to provide you
some recommendations for height than just say no. Right.
Absolutely. So I had some initial thoughts and I kind of drew out
a diagram of where everything is kind of placed on almost like when you have tall buildings they
have to do a shadow study so if if I'm taking a look at you know what people were thinking and
I had a feeling that there was lighting behind it and that's why I asked the question to staff is
is there that backlighting that when it's quiet that that's kind of the beauty about Walnut Creek
because that when the city quiets down,
even though it's a bustling city,
it actually is quiet and not a bunch of lights
because we're not elsewhere in the Bay Area.
So I had a couple of thoughts regarding
particularly signed S2 and S6.
So S6 seems to be the one that faces
those homes off of Stowe, Shoey, Almond,
because the businesses around there
are kind of like the two story.
So, and I'm not, I'm just like kind of looking at things.
And so in my mind,
that S6 maybe doesn't want to be super high
so that all the homeowners in that area, they're protected.
And then the other thing that I was going to say
was sign S2.
that faces the Montecito Alma Park Apartments,
which those, if I'm not mistaken,
are a typical podium building type five or a type one.
So five-story, call it 60 feet high.
So that kind of thought process,
to me, when I looked at S1,
you're facing another top building, S2,
you're facing fills, you cross the limbic
and then you get to the Montesee to Alma Park
where you have that podium style building 60 feet high.
So that kind of drives you,
do they even see it at that top floor?
The S3, again, you're facing those taller buildings
of Cinemark, so I'm not quite sure
that it would really affect anyone,
but it's really that S6,
because the S5, again, you're facing Mancini's
and all those, Shake Shack.
I don't think that it would hit
Carmel Lincoln Avenue homes but have did is does that kind of thought process
sorry just threw a lot at you. No that's fine yeah. But I'm hoping that there was
some thought process of I want to keep all these signs and I want the heights
to be to be thoughtfully placed with who my surrounding people are. Do you have
ideas of put those especially those two particular locations S6 and S2 where it
faces those homes. Yeah of of these locations and again these are three
potential locations with a maximum of two signs per building so it's like pick
two out of the three and the reason we chose three potential locations on the
on the building was you never really know what a tenant might think is
valuable you know we always try to second-guess people and you know oh let's
put it there and then you know to us that makes the most sense and then some
tenant goes along and comes along and goes no I'd really like to face the
traffic coming this way but anyway if I were to rub my crystal ball I would say
that the s5 location is probably the least valuable from a tenant standpoint
I think s6 is that there's you know that there's not a lot of stuff going on in
in terms of other potential people looking at S6, except really southbound traffic.
S1, there is an office building just west of that, but it is set back a little bit more,
so there is a clear vantage point coming from Mount Diablo. It's mostly kind of offices and
retail, strip retail there, so we think S1 just makes sense because a lot of people are coming
from the freeway there. S2, just the number of people coming north on California we'd like
to capture, but at the same time S3, you know, people heading to the freeway, Mount Diablo,
Boulevard, that makes sense too. So I guess, you know, for the 1331 building, I think kind of our
two first and second choice would be S1 and S2 in terms of best locations, and then S4 and S6.
I think S6 wants to be up high just because there's a whole lot of trees just north of
there.
If you look at that, the photo rendering, you'll see it on that T15 page.
There's quite a bit going on in that S6 location as you're coming southbound.
And most of the development down there is kind of single story for a while.
So...
If you were on stow if you lived right on stow or almond
Would you be able to see that because you're trying to get above the tree line
especially with that lit
Yeah, I think because of that the there's a fairly significant tree line between you in that building
I'm not sure you're gonna see it from the street
Like or you know from a from one of those buildings there
Because I agree with you s1. I don't think I don't think that's gonna bother
again you're you're it's all commercial yes to the only thing is think about
that those podium buildings are at Alma Park because windows do face that way
yeah and then it's that s it's that s6 I mean obviously I haven't calculated
like here's the window yeah here's the sign homes I think those are mainly one
story houses around there not not to store it is mostly single single story
down there, yeah. Also, I'm talking about those were my... Yeah, well, and you know the the other
thing I if if lighting was a big concern to everybody and and we wanted to halo light them,
we could halo light them, let the light spill out the back. So, I think if it faces a residential
thing, yeah, it can be viewed from a residential thing, we can we can halo light it, we do that all
the time. Anything further? Okay, I do have a question. Would simply having a
timer that they turn off at 10 o'clock at night solve the problem? Absolutely,
yeah. And the same thing with with the dimmers. If if they go up and we start
getting complaints, they'll be dimmable. We'll be able to put a requirement. Just shut up, absolutely.
Yeah these are these are not retailers this is the movie theater you know these
are these are businesses that you know at best you know during tax season they
might be open till you know seven or eight or something crazy but you know
yeah if you wanted to shut them off at ten o'clock at night nine o'clock at
night whatever you wanted to shut them off I think we'd be amenable to that okay
I do have some other quick questions so if I clarified that there is no skyline
signs in the Golden Triangle area currently. I don't believe so. I'm sorry.
They're authorized for skyline signs. They are. Yep. There's none of them
existing right now. Correct, yeah. Is there one up? I missed one. Okay, here we go.
Thank you. There's one. And each of those buildings as well is, they have multiple
potential locations but a 2 max per building, so same same requirement. So if
If we prove this, we're matching the golden triangle.
We're not changing anything else.
Yeah.
And they're the same thing in terms of lighting.
They're the same thing in terms of timers.
They have lights, dimmers, timers.
And it would be safe to assume that you
would prefer us not to restrict the height of the skyline
signs at this point.
That would be great if you wanted to say,
keep them off the very top of the building.
We're fine with that, too.
And do you have any idea?
I mean, to me, we're obviously in competition
with the Golden Triangle
for the Pleasant Hill Center,
Conchos Center and San Francisco basically.
Is what's the vacancy rate for this particular complex
as opposed to the Golden Triangle
as opposed to anything else?
I'll have to ask these gentlemen to help me out on that one.
Why don't you count out?
You guys wanna come?
part of the problem. Hi, my name is Brett Klutz. I'm a commercial leasing broker. I
lease about 75 percent of the Class A office space with a Wanna Creek address. So that
would include the Pleasant Hill Bart Station, Contra Costa Center, the Wanna Creek Bart
Station and downtown Wanna Creek and encompasses about 14 properties and about 3 million square
of space. Just to give you a little bit of background, the genesis of this whole
discussion of the signage at the Golden Triangle was as a result of marketing
the buildings up at the Puz in Obart station Contra Costa Center, the county
put virtually no limitations on signage up there. I have a building up there,
299 Oak, where the county has allowed six signs. It's a six-sided building on the
building, and we've had that right for 20 years, we currently only have one sign on
the building, but we have the right to do it. But in order to attract tenants, some
tenants, as Ted was saying, some tenants want to have, if they're very conscious
of their name being out there and seen and advertised, in order to go to a
a building, they want some sort of high visibility signage,
whether it be a monument sign on the street or a skyline sign.
I went to Ethan Bindernagel, this was 10 years ago,
and said, you're losing business to the Contra Costa center
because you won't allow this.
And so that was the genesis of the signs at the Wauna Creek
Barts Station.
This is really just an extension of this.
So Wauna Creek Barts Station now has that to offer.
And some of the same tenants want that
if they're gonna come to 1331 and 1333.
So that's all we're trying to do
is create an even playing field
so that the Downtown Wanna Creek Corps
can attract tenants both for that we're looking
at the Country Cross to Center area
or the Wanna Creek Bart Station
and that's all we're trying to create for.
To answer your question specifically about vacancy,
the Downtown Wanna Creek Building, Grover Square
and 1331 and 1333, which are the only true,
what we refer to, Class A buildings
in the downtown core with accessibility.
The retail amenities are very well leased right now.
I'm 95% leased in one and we're 93% leased in this project.
The BART station buildings, everyone is different,
but the average vacancy in the Class A vacancy
up there is about 26%.
The only difference in that, really,
is that the downtown Wanna Creek
has the access to the retail amenities.
It doesn't have anything to do with the signage.
But we do need that in order to continue
to attract strong tenants to Wanna Creek in general,
we need to have that ability to give these tenants
that want that identity some sort of way to get identity.
And we're talking about very minimal amounts of tenants.
We're talking about four signs on the street level,
basically four tenant names,
and four tenant names on the building
in a 400,000 square foot project.
So anyway, that's-
Thank you.
Yeah.
Any questions for him?
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions right now?
We'll now open.
Thank you.
We'll now open it up for public comments.
Anyone else?
Oh, sorry, one more question down here.
Yes, I did have one more question.
Sorry, you were just about to go
and I know we've been telling you of it,
but thank you so much for your patience
and willingness to explain to us.
So one thing I do know is that this property
falls within the boundaries of the West Pacific downtown plan.
And I know that there is a plan there to increase the,
I guess, density, if you will,
of the area with middle density buildings.
And so with regards to the placement of the signage
that's been in the mock-up for us,
is this also in consideration of the possibility
that there might be future developments adjacent or nearby
that may obscure the signs however many years down the road?
You know, we didn't think about that specifically.
I think the signs that would potentially be impacted
by this would be the S1 on the north side
and the S6 on the west side and S6 on the north.
You'd have to get a very large development happening
to impact S6 and, but the area west of here
I think is probably right for redevelopment.
That's probably years down the road.
But no, we didn't consider that a lot.
Our monument signs, our freestanding signs
are clustered around the plaza,
so those really wouldn't be impacted by future development.
And the same thing with the M3 monument sign
for the 1333 north side there.
wouldn't really be impacted by, you know,
if you did drop in a podium or residential building
or something like that, north or west of here.
Okay, thank you, very helpful.
Thank you again, any other questions before he sits down?
Thank you, okay.
Now we will now open this up for public comment.
Any member of the public who would like to comment
on this project, please step forward.
So I just forgot to make one more comment.
There was a question, I can't remember who asked it
about that the signs that were approved
at the Wanner Creek Barts Station
were based on freeway signage.
And actually, it was partially based on that,
but this is actually the ownerships,
and I represent those ownerships.
We didn't only want signage on the freeway.
Yes, that's important, especially to compete
with Contra Costa Center.
But there was also a need for street level
or street signage identity.
And so the signage that was approved
at the Wanner Creek Barts Station,
For example, at 100 and 200 Pringle,
there's two signs approved on each of those buildings
and only one of the four signs
is actually could be visible from the freeway.
The other three are visible from the street.
The same thing with Cal Plaza next door,
2121 North California, that's a much bigger building.
And the Planning Commission
actually approved three signs there
and only one of the signs there,
locations is visible from the freeway,
the other two are street signs.
And the same thing with 2175 and 2185 North California,
the other applicant for that signage.
So it was not just intended to be freeway signage,
it was to be able to provide identity for on the street,
which is just as important.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Anyone else?
Seeing none, we will close public comments
and bring it back to the commission for discussion.
We'd like to go first, commissioner Ward.
Okay, first of all, I appreciate all the presentations
we've had that has been extremely helpful.
I think at its essence,
signage is obviously a form of communication.
That's why we put signs on things.
So wayfinding and also identifying things.
I agree that our signage program needs to reflect
the current business landscape that we have,
which has changed a lot since COVID, clearly.
And I think it's really, really important
that as a community, you know, we say, you know,
we are like a premier business location for this area,
this entire area, we are the business center.
And I think it's important that we demonstrate
that we have high quality, you know,
name recognition businesses in our community
and that we are open for business.
You know, it was a real question
whether we were open for business for a long time.
And we're back and I'm glad that despite Scott's
having left you, which I think we all miss Scots.
Do we all miss Scots?
Yes, we miss Scots, but despite that,
it appears that you're doing really well
in the occupancy area, that you've got a lot of people
in there doing a lot of business,
they're showing up at work, they're participating
in the commercial life of Downtown Walnut Creek,
and I think it is a huge missed opportunity
for these buildings, which are, as we pointed out,
some of the largest buildings in the downtown
commercial area to not allow us to demonstrate
that this is a thriving business center for us.
And so for that reason, I think the request
that you've made are really reasonable.
As someone who's perpetually lost,
I actually appreciate a little bit more wayfinding.
Please put your car here, this is where we need to go.
So I think that's good and I think that your receptivity
to being good neighbors
for some of the residential communities nearby
is really important,
but it sounds like that can be dealt with really well
by dimming timers,
just the stuff that you do for everybody else essentially,
that we can make that work here as well.
So I think this is a reasonable request.
I think it's something that would promote
and enhance our downtown area.
And I think we should proceed
with allowing these signs to be put on our building.
comments? I think I have more of a procedural question. So because
there are two resolutions before us today, one is to uphold the DRC decision,
the other is to make the exceptions and approve the appeal. Would the motion be
to take one of those resolutions and then discuss that and vote on it? Yes, and
And if you'd like to make any changes to either one of the resolutions, that would also be
fine.
Okay.
Thank you.
Comments?
Commissioner Anderson.
So with respect to the freestanding signs, I take your point about the parking signs
really just telling you how to get into the building, which is not entirely obvious as
you're circling around it.
So the idea to discount them, they are freestanding signs on the other hand, they're for a different
purpose than what's really intended by the freestanding sign ordinance.
So I wouldn't be object to the five signs.
Also if these are two different projects, the two different buildings, you'd have four
or six signs available to you.
And then, I think with M1 and M2, rather than choosing between them, you know, one is, you
know, 1331, and one is 1333.
If you're coming from that intersection and to where those signs are, it'd be nice to
know that if there's only one, identifying one building, well, is the other building
also 1331, or is it, I mean, it could be a little confusing.
I think having two of them there is clarifying.
So I don't have any objection to the five signs as opposed to four, or three as opposed
to two, whatever it is, however you account them, all the signs.
With respect to the skyline signs, I'm glad you clarified about the highway visibility
on the other project, because I was really having some trouble figuring out why that
That would be so critical to distinguish the two buildings.
And it seems to me that if you're just driving by, you're not going to whatever is in Golden
Triangle.
You're going somewhere else.
And so it's much more useful, I think, to be able to see them from arterial streets
because you may actually be trying to find the Tesla headquarters or wherever you're
going to get in there.
So I think, actually, in some ways,
being visible from busy streets where the traffic actually
stops sometimes is not going by at 60 miles or 70 miles an hour.
It seems to me it's actually probably more valuable.
So for that reason, it's hard to distinguish
from me between those two projects.
And plus the fact that they're authorized to put signs up,
but only one has gone up.
They're not going to be up there with the hammers putting signs
up next week all over the building.
Maybe sometime later they'll have a tenant that qualifies
for whatever.
So I think the four signs in one of those six positions
is a reasonable approach and I would permit them
on the same basis that they were permitted
at the Golden Triangle.
Other comments right now?
I had just one quick comment, and again, thank you.
The information has been really helpful and educational
in terms of the business community
and what they're looking for to recruit
to Walnut Creek, which we want.
To me, I'm sort of a minimalist
of what appearances look like.
So the conversations we had about dimming,
turning off at night, not putting way up on the top
to say like, blah, blah, blah, this is where I am.
Those are accommodations I think I'd like
to have us consider including,
just to keep the signage reasonable to the business day
and not to the 24 hour days of the community.
So I'd be interested in that conversation if we can have it.
Okay.
I agree with Commissioner Ward
that wayfinding is important.
Over the years I've had to go in searching for businesses
in that complex and have always felt lost
and always turned around and always wind up
in the wrong building or the wrong elevator.
So wayfinding is very important.
I would support granting the appeal,
which is item attachment one,
but I would also add to that,
that I would like to see us,
the all of the signage lights turned off at 10 p.m.
Motion.
Go for a motion.
So just before you make a motion,
I just wanted to be clear for the record.
So it sounds like what I'm hearing
is that the commission is leaning towards
to approve the appellant's request
and to adopt that resolution.
The resolution currently right now
would approve the plans that are presented.
And so I just wanted to be clear
that if the commission has any conditions
that are not currently present in the resolution
that you would like to see as a body,
that needs to be, we need to craft that
and include it in the resolution.
And if that's something the commission,
because I heard a few commissioners mention aspects
like dimming the lights, possibly, you know,
turn off timers and things like that.
So I just want to make sure for the record
that's something you'd like.
So my motion would be to grant the appeal
with the provision that as far as the skyline signs
are concerned that they be halo lighting backlight signs
that they be turned off at a time
to be negotiated with the staff, can I say that way?
We heard 10 o'clock, but that may not be the right time.
And, oh, and I guess the idea
that they not be on the very top band.
Dimmable, I think we want dimmable, right?
Okay, sure. Yeah.
Particularly for the ones that face residential buildings.
So, backlit, immobile, timers, and not on the top of the top.
Okay, and if that's what the commission is looking for, I'd like to ask the applicant
to confirm on the record that that's acceptable to them.
And if you could talk about a potential time when you think it would be appropriate to
turn off so that we could kind of have a discussion about that.
Yeah, absolutely.
that all sounds great to us.
And in our original document, the T8, it says, you know,
no exposed race wise, no exposed electrical components.
Illuminated signage should be turned off between the hours
of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily.
Signage may be lit, lighting source color temperature
to be 3,000 degrees Kelvin white.
all sign face all face lit signage with white faces shall be fabricated with
dimming capabilities to allow the brightness to be adjusted after signs
are installed so what he said yeah so we actually had that language in our
eight thank you but yeah that's sounds great to us do you want to read back the
So, it would be the motion to adopt the resolution to approve the, to uphold the appeal, grant
the appellant's request, applicant's request with the four conditions that Vice Chair Anderson
identified, which is the timing, turning it off, back on, backlit, halo, and not being
on the edge of the building that was suitable toward the tall of the building.
Second, possibly?
Yes, I second.
Okay.
Okay. Please call the roll. Commissioner Kwok. Yes.
Commissioner Ward. Yes. Commissioner Kwok. Yes. Commissioner Reiser recused himself.
Commissioner Nating. Yes. Vice Chair Anderson. Yes. Chair Strongman. Yes. Motion
passes. Thank you. And moving on to Commission considerations. Do we have any?
staff does not have any reports this game moving on to Commission member and
staff reports or announcements seeing none we will be now adjourned thank you
for tonight