Are you ready? Good evening and welcome to the August 8th, 2024 Planning Commission
meeting of Walnut Creek. What the sector is called a roll. Commissioner Kwok?
Present. Commissioner Ward? Here. Commissioner Clapp is absent. Commissioner Ryser? Here.
Commissioner Nating? Here. Vice Chair Anderson? Here. Chair Strongman? Here. And I'd like to ask
with my fellow commissioners if there's been any ex parte communications with
the lane of the applicants on the agenda and seeing shaking heads I would say
that's no moving on to the consent calendar I believe we do not have
anything on the consent calendar is that correct yes moving on to item three
public communications this is public communications that's you may speak on
any topic that is not on the agenda if you're here for Chick-fil-a you will
have your turn but anything other than that you're welcome to come approach the
podium and speak for seeing no one racing to the podium I'm going to close
public communications and move on to the public hearing we have one item on the
agenda the chick-fil-a restaurant at citrus marketplace shopping center
master sign program amendments and there are two appeals to the designing review
Board's decision. And the way it's going to work is we're going to have a staff presentation.
The commissioners will be able to question the staff. Then the first appellant will have 15
minutes. And then the commissions will ask questions of that one. And the second appellate
will have another 15 minutes. And we will then ask them questions if we have any.
at the end of the public testimony they will have a chance to rebuttal both of them. At that point
we'll have public testimony and then the rebuttals and then if we will finally close the public
hearing and we will turn it back to the commissioners for consideration. So maybe we have the staff
report please. If I may through the chair before the staff begin their presentation I just would
like to reiterate for the commission that the hearing tonight is solely limited to final design
review specifically the appeals on the signs and not to the entire project. Good evening commissioners.
Simmer-Gill associate planner with the city. We are here tonight to consider the two appeals that
were filed on design review commission's decision of the design review and the master sign program
amendment for the Chick-fil-a that will be located at 2290 Oak Grove Road the
both of the appellants I believe are here tonight to state their case Steve
Elster is representing the neighborhood appeal and Nathan Loveland is
representing Chick-fil-a as the applicant and just to orient you with the site
Citrus Marketplace Shopping Center is located at the corner of Oak Grove and
Citrus Avenue. It does consist of three parcels that are all developed with
commercial uses. The surrounding area consists of a mix of uses and there are
residential areas to the north and east of the Shopping Center. And just to go
over what was under Design Review Commission's purview, the Design Review
Commission considered the following items that are listed on this slide.
Design Review Commission approved the design and building architecture and
and also considered a Master Sign Program amendment,
which we will go into more detail
further in this presentation.
And just to recap prior approvals,
on March 14th of 2024,
the Planning Commission did review this project
and determined the CEQA exemptions,
as well as approved the conditional use permit
and the tree removals.
And then on March 24th, within the 10-day appeal period,
the project was appealed on Planning Commission's decision and subsequently
on May 21st City Council reviewed the entire project did deny the appeal and
affirmed Planning Commission's decision of the CEQA exemption and the project
approval as well as incorporate additional conditions one being limiting
operating hours to 10 p.m. daily and on June 19th the Design Review Commission
approved the design review, also approved the master sign program amendment which included
a 48-inch tall letter height for the logo which is the C in Chick-fil-A deviating from
that 24-inch letter height that's specified in the sign program.
However, DRC did not approve the third wall sign, limiting it to two sign locations, which
is what is currently allowed in the shopping center.
Just to quickly go over the appeal process,
the Planning Commission tonight is the appeal body
and will conduct this public hearing
considering this appeal as a new matter.
However, the only final design review
is before the Planning Commission tonight,
not the entire project.
The appeals before the Commission focus on signage only.
The first appeal was received from the appellant,
who is the neighborhood,
requesting denial of the 48-inch tall letter height.
And then on July 2nd, the second appellant, who was the applicant, filed an appeal requesting
approval of the third-wall sign location.
No changes have been proposed to the scope since the previous approvals, so the project
continues to be exempt from CEQA, and that was previously determined by the City under
the previous entitlements.
So tonight, Planning Commission is the final decision-making body.
other further appeals could be made after today. And just to quickly go over
the master sign program allowances, two wall signs that are illuminated with
channel letters is allowed with a letter height of 24 inches with a width of
signs that shall not exceed 70% of the building's frontage. Chick-fil-A is
proposing three identical wall signs aluminum halo lit with channel letters
with a letter height of 24 inches for the remaining business name however the
logo which is the C in Chick-fil-A will be 48 inches in height and each sign
totals 37.66 square feet in size and it is nine and a half feet in width. And
here are the two building elevations that you see the north and south
elevation which was approved by the Design Review Commission. However, the
sign location that's facing Oak Grove Road, the west elevation, was denied by
the Design Review Commission and then the fourth elevation that you see is the
east elevation that's facing the adjacent tenant Panda Express as well as
looking into the Citrus Avenue residential neighborhood and no sign is
proposed there. And just to quickly get into the appeals, the first appeal from
the neighbor was for the 48-inch tall letter height. The DRC did approve that
letter height, recognizing that it is the restaurant's business logo. The
neighborhood, however, did object to that and they're stating that the letter
height would create a visual blight and also serve as excessive advertisement
for this restaurant at the entrance of their neighborhood
and that it would result in an impact to their area.
And staff's response to that is,
given the scale and size of this building,
the DRC did note that the larger C
would not overpower the overall facade of the building.
The building's width on all elevations
ensures that the increased height
would not have any adverse impacts,
and it would fit within the designated sign area.
The building width on the north and south elevations is 123 feet wide and then the smallest
elevation, which is facing Oak Grove, the west elevation is about 41 feet wide.
And no other logos are proposed apart from that 48 inch tall letter height.
The rest of the letters in the business name are lower case script lettering and they do
comply with the 24 inch letter height. And similar letter heights have been
approved in Walnut Creek. There's been a range of 36 to 60 inch tall logos that
have been approved with master sign program amendments. And under the city
sign ordinance there are no restrictions on letter height if the sign is an
architectural harmony with the overall scale of the building. And here are some
examples of letter heights in Walnut Creek. I'll start with the top left. It's
Mike Kess Brewing Company that is in the Orchard Shopping Center which is
directly across the street from this shopping center. It was allowed to have a
32 inch letter height and that business linear feet is actually less than
Chick-fil-A's linear feet and Rocco's which is not an anchor tenant. They have a
a five foot tall logo at the top of their business name.
And PetSmart, as you can see,
the width of the frontage of that building
is about 23 feet wide,
and the sign is basically occupying that entire area,
and all the letters are capital,
and it's five feet six inches tall.
And then another example that is Macaulay's,
it's in the Countrywood Shopping Center.
I use this as an example because, again,
this is script lettering with the M and the C being larger,
and that was approved at four feet tall.
And then the other one is, again,
in the Countrywood Shopping Center, Panera Bread.
With the letter height, the stacked letter height and logo,
it was approved at five feet tall.
The logo itself is about three feet tall.
And all of these shopping centers that I'm referring to
are all in neighborhood shopping centers
that are near residential areas.
And here's a recent example.
The Primrose Preschool that will be located again
in the Orchard Shopping Center.
And as you're going out of Citrus Avenue,
out towards Citrus to make a left or right on Oak Grove,
the first thing you're gonna see is that sign at the top.
that's the back of the Primrose Preschool Building.
It was approved for 48 inch tall letter height
or logo height.
The applicant for this project was requesting
a 60 inch tall letter height exemption.
However, that was not approved,
but the Design Review Commission
approved the amendment at 48 inches.
And here is another example.
And this probably isn't the best example
because it's not in a residential area,
but I am putting this just for context
because of the size and scale of the building
is similar to this one.
And it is a similar use.
The Chick-fil-A on the North Main location in Walnut Creek
was approved for a five foot tall logo height.
And the overall letter height, I believe,
is three and a half feet.
Again, same size and scale.
However, it's much larger in size
than the proposed Chick-fil-A signage before you tonight.
And moving on to the second appeal,
which the applicant appealed.
DRC did not approve the third wall sign,
stating that the sign is repetitive and unnecessary.
The applicant is appealing this,
stating it's overly restrictive to deny this,
and because there have been other approvals
that were granted in Walnut Creek.
And staff's response to that is
The building does have multiple street frontages and two entrances are located at the corner
of two busy streets.
And the third sign will enhance the overall visibility and provide identification from
different areas or different streets in this area.
And freestanding buildings with multiple frontages are typically allowed.
One sign per frontage in Walnut Creek for pad buildings.
The sign program lacks sign area specifics.
It is a sign program from 1996.
So it didn't really cover how much sign area
could be allowed per tenant.
However, it does talk about the total width of the signs
to not exceed 70% of the building's frontage.
The width of the signs for this project does comply.
Chick-fil-A's proposal proposed width
is nine and a half feet for each sign.
and that totals 28 and a half feet for all signs combined.
And with the individual or the combined width,
they both remain well below the allowed 86 feet width.
If you use that calculation of 70% of the frontage width
in the master sign program for the shopping center.
And I also wanted to touch on the city sign ordinance
as it defines a building with multiple frontages.
Chick-fil-a's elevations does meet the frontage criteria
as two of the elevations are facing public streets,
Oak Grove and Citrus Avenue.
One elevation, which is the east,
provides shopping center access,
and the north elevation is accessible from the parking lot.
And this is the only building in the shopping center
that has multiple street frontages.
The rest of the buildings are either facing Oak Grove
or Citrus Avenue, this one faces both.
Chick-fil-a is proposing one sign per Street frontage and a sign above the entry doors on the north elevation
which faces the internal parking lot and
the total sign area is
122 square feet and
per the sign city sign ordinance
Chick-fil-a would be allowed a total of 196 square feet as
outlined in the calculation that I prepared and included an attachment six of your agenda packet tonight and
And the 122 square feet does include all of the three wall signs, the blade sign as well
as the welcome sign that's proposed.
And even with all of those signs it's well below what the sign ordinance would allow.
And another point to be noted is the former tenant Bank of America that was located in
the same building was permitted to have three sign locations.
And again, I've included that attachment to show that there were three signs that were
at some time approved.
It came back to the city in 2006 to modify those signs to basically incorporate backer
panels to three existing signs.
So with that information, it does confirm that the Shopping Center's sign program was
previously modified to accommodate more than two signs for this building setting a president's.
And I also want to point out that the proposed Chick-fil-A signs are similar with established practices in the neighborhood
and with other businesses of similar size and nature and I have listed those on this slide and I will also share photographs
in the next slide and
The amendment tonight does not violate the signage limits in the city sign ordinance
And it is consistent with the similar developments that are found in other neighborhood shopping centers
And here are the Bank of America sign locations for the former tenant at the same location.
As mentioned earlier, this is the only building with multiple street frontages, and that may
be the reason why three signs were warranted for Bank of America.
Chick-fil-A is proposing three signs.
However, due to the sensitivity of the neighborhood, they are not proposing any signs on the east
elevation which would be facing the adjacent tenant Panda Express as well as
overlooking into Citrus Avenue where the residential neighborhood is. All of the
signs are closer to the street frontages basically to get more
identification or visibility for motorists going in all directions. And
here are some examples of commercial uses with multiple signs bank of America
sorry, Wells Fargo Bank in the Orchard Shopping Center also has three sign locations.
And this is, again, across the street from Citrus Marketplace.
And here is Panera Bread, again, a shopping center that is near a residential neighborhood.
It is at the corner of Treat and Bancroft, and it does have three sign locations.
And as I mentioned earlier, the primary sign that is near the entry doors is a five foot
tall stacked logo and letters.
And the third example I have is Starbucks, again, in a Rossmore Shopping Center near
a residential area.
It does feature three signs, and a 48-inch tall logo was approved through a master sign
program amendment.
And here again, I just wanted to show that the Chick-fil-A at 2750 North Main Street
does feature three wall signs, as well as a monument sign.
And this is in similar scale and size of the proposed Chick-fil-A tonight.
However, this signage at the North Main location is actually larger.
And the C is five foot tall, whereas Chick-fil-A tonight is proposing four foot tall.
24-inch letter height, whereas the rest of the letters I believe are three and a half feet tall
for this location.
So with that the Planning Commission does have the option of taking either of the following actions tonight
for the neighborhood appeal they could deny the appeal to affirm DRC's decision and
approve the 48-inch tall letter height or grant the neighborhoods appeal reversing DRC's decision and
the same action would be for the applicant's appeal granting the appeal to reverse DRC's decision to approve the
Third Sign Location or denying the appeal affirming DRC's decision
allowing only two wall signs for this business and
I believe
that is all I have for my presentation, but I wanted to say for the record that we did receive a lot of
Opposition letters and petition letters that have been signed and those have all been included as part of your agenda packet and several letters that came
Up to four o'clock today paper copies hard copies have been provided to all of you and paper copies have been placed in the back for the public
so I'm happy to answer any questions and
Claire lie, the assistant city attorney will be also available to answer any legal questions. Thank you
Thank you for your presentation and we'll ask commissioners
Commissioner Riser, thank you a great great presentation. Thanks. This is not typically we don't often see sign
applications or appeals or anything like this. So this is a
Pretty interesting to kind of read through and whatnot. Can you speak to?
The the sign lightage the lighting of these signs
Are they lit 24 hours? They overnight did they have to go out at 10 o'clock when the hours are turned off?
How does that work? That's a great question. I believe it's 24 hours, but we could have the applicant confirm that they are halo-lit
Which we typically see in Walnut Creek and require the sign
Applicants to provide halo-lit signage. Okay. Thank you
Thank you, um, I'm good. I'm curious about the interplay between the the city standards and the sign
program for the shopping center
So the the
City would permit for the standalone building
for four signs
Is that correct? That is correct one per frontage and the but the shopping center sign program would allow only two
That is straight to not
Doesn't matter how many services you have
You mentioned that they modified the program for the Bank of America building that was there then
Was that strictly for Bank of America or for any standalone building for that site?
So we don't have any information except knowing that it was strictly for Bank of America.
I believe the difference between the sign ordinance and the sign program is the sign
program is silent as far as it doesn't distinguish or differentiate between inline tenants and
of pad buildings, except I believe they modified the sign program just to call the Panda Express
building a pad building, but the vacant Chase Bank building and the vacant Bank of America
building, there's actually no specific language that would differentiate in the sign program.
And so, when the city sign ordinance and the shopping center rules conflict, is it the
most restrictive that's used or do they have to comply with both?
Yeah.
So, the city's sign ordinance is what requires sign programs to be created if there are six
or more tenants in a shopping center.
However, if a sign program is silent and doesn't have the specifics, then you do defer back
to the city sign ordinance and that's what's happening here.
And on the letters, the size of the first letter,
is there a specific limitation on the size of a logo?
I noticed there were some that were five feet
or three feet or whatever.
Yeah.
Is there a ordinance or a shopping center?
Yeah, in the city sign ordinance,
it doesn't differentiate between a letter size
or a logo size, it's all, if it meets the sign area.
So if it's within the sign area,
if it's within the scale and architectural harmony
of the building, then it would be allowed.
And that is something that staff evaluates
when we get proposals for master sign program amendments.
We look at all of that.
And so, I'm sorry, can you just, question?
with the, so there's no specific limitation on the height?
Oh, yes, so exactly, the sign ordinance
doesn't have any specific limitations,
and then the sign program in this one as well
does not have any, some of the sign programs,
I believe the orchards allows 36 inch or 32 inch tall,
and same with the Encina Grande Shopping Center,
but they were also more recent,
so they have provided some parameters,
but this sign program in particular, Citrus Marketplace does not draw a distinction
and neither does the sign ordinance.
Okay. For a stand-alone, a logo?
Correct. Yeah.
And as far as letters, have there been other exceptions for a leading capital letter being
allowed to be larger than the 24 inches?
Yeah, I've actually provided some examples.
many of those were exemptions,
either for the logo or letter heights.
Macaulay's-
Were those in the-
In the slideshow, yeah.
Macaulay's, again, it's in the country wood shopping center.
That backs up to a residential neighborhood.
And like I said, it was even similar
as far as the script lettering.
It was, I believe, 24 inch for the remaining letters,
but four feet for the, yeah, thank you.
So it was the M and the C was approved at four feet tall.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah.
Other questions?
Thank you.
We'll move on and we'll maybe bring you back
when we get questions at some point.
The first appellant, please.
And you have 15 minutes, which is, which one is that?
I believe it's the neighborhood.
You have 15 minutes.
OK, bear with me a moment.
That would be helpful so we can see exactly what
it is we're talking about.
If you get the gist.
If you could put it further out,
you'd actually see it on the chairs.
Yeah, that's good.
Apologize for the artwork.
I did try to stay within the lines.
I don't know if I succeeded entirely.
My name is Steve Elster.
I'm here on behalf of Friends of Walnut Creek and over 140 Walnut
Creek residents who have submitted letters in opposition
to Chick-fil-A's signage exceptions.
The two questions before you tonight are, one,
should Chick-fil-A be granted an exception
to have larger chicken head signs at the entrance
to the Woodlands?
And two, should Chick-fil-A be granted an exception
to have more chicken head signs at the entrance
to the Woodlands?
Chick-fil-A's plans for this location
consist of a restaurant and a, quote,
Meal Fulfillment Center, as Chick-fil-A calls it.
So far, despite overwhelming community opposition, the city has approved everything that Chick-fil-A
has asked for.
Everyone will know that this prominent corner of Oak Grove and Citrus will be the location
of Chick-fil-A's Restaurant and Chicken Sandwich Fulfillment Center.
If one envisions what Chick-fil-A's signage exceptions will actually look like at this
corner, it's clear what these signs will do.
the elevation at which the signs will be placed, the excessive size of the signs,
and the excessive number of signs at this corner, Chick-fil-a is asking to turn the
entrance to the Woodlands into a beacon of chicken head signage. There's absolutely no
need or justification for more or larger chicken head signs than is already permitted.
In addition to the community's concerns and opposition to this signage, Chick-fil-a has
offered no evidence that its larger and more numerous chicken head signs are necessary
to the success of this location. I guess it shouldn't be surprising how one-sided the
staff report is in recommending larger and more chicken head signs at the entrance to
our neighborhood, but it is still disappointing. Here are some examples of the one-sided nature
of the staff report. Letters from more than 140 Walnut Creek residents were submitted
in opposition to Chick-fil-A's requests for larger chicken head signs and an additional
chicken head sign, the staff report makes no mention of this.
The staff report baselessly characterizes Chick-fil-A's chicken head signs as, quote,
a visually appealing presentation.
Staff may find Chick-fil-A's chicken head signage as visually appealing, but we do not.
The staff report compares this Chick-fil-A location at the entrance to the Woodlands
to the Chick-fil-A on North Main Street
with auto repair businesses and car dealerships next door.
The staff report says that the North Main Street location
is some kind of, quote, precedent within the community
for Chick-fil-A's chicken head signs.
That comparison between these two locations is ludicrous.
In making this ridiculous comparison,
staff is saying that whatever is appropriate
in any one part of Walnut Creek
is appropriate for all parts of Walnut Creek,
including that whatever is appropriate in the semi-industrial stretch of North Main Street
is appropriate for the entrance to the Woodlands.
Is that really how simplistically planning staff evaluates proposals?
What exists in any one part of the city is a precedent for any other location in the
city?
That can't possibly be an appropriate basis to recommend Chick-fil-A's signage exceptions.
The staff report notes that the Bank of America building that formerly occupied this location
had three signs.
Naturally, staff describes this as a, quote, historical precedent.
In recommending anything a developer proposes, staff certainly loves to toss around the word
precedent, which apparently means anything that staff has seen once before.
I'm going to note here that aside from the matter before you tonight, anyone in Walnut
Creek who has any concerns about any development of any kind anywhere in the city should be
on alert that if something is approved one single time by the city, staff will apply
its baseless approach and deem that to be a, quote, precedent for anywhere else in the
city.
But even if one is inclined to regard the Bank of America signage as some kind of, quote,
historical precedent, if you look at Attachment 10, you'll actually see what is a so-called
precedent for.
One sign, approximately 10 feet above ground level, under an awning, with 18-inch lettering
facing the interior of the shopping center.
One sign approximately 10 feet above ground level under an awning with 12-inch lettering
on the west side of the building facing Oak Grove.
And one sign approximately 10 feet above ground level under an awning with 12-inch lettering
on the south side of the building facing Citrus.
If staff is going to claim that the Bank of America signage is a, quote, precedent of
some kind, I'm actually curious to know if Chick-fil-A is amenable to having its chicken
head signage consistent with the specifications
of the Bank of America signage.
That would mean one 18-inch chicken head sign 10 feet
above ground level under an awning facing the interior
of the shopping center, one 12-inch chicken head sign 10
feet above ground level under an awning on the west side
of the building facing Oak Grove,
and one 12-inch chicken head sign 10 feet
above ground level under an awning on the west side
of the building facing Citrus.
I really am curious if the Bank of America's signage specifications is something Chick-fil-A
would be amenable to.
Perhaps the most obvious defects in the staff report is the cherry-picked excerpts from
the city's sign ordinance.
The staff report cites the sign ordinance for nothing other than the amount of footage
permitted for signs.
Well, for your decision-making process tonight, I believe you've been given relevant excerpts
that I've submitted from the city's sign ordinance that staff decided to omit from their report.
Is that something that was circulated?
Yes.
Okay.
This is what you should keep in mind when considering whether to grant Chick-fil-A's
requests for larger and more chicken head signs.
Chapter 8, Section 10-1.101.1, intent.
Signs have a strong visual impact on the character and quality of the community.
As a prominent part of the scenery, they attract or repel the viewing public, and their suitability
or appropriateness helps to set the tone of the neighborhood.
We believe that exceptions for larger and more numerous chicken head signs are not suitable
or appropriate for our neighborhood.
Section 10-8.101.2 Purpose, Part B. It is the stated purpose of the City Council to
encourage signs that are of a quality design, pleasing in appearance, and are appropriate
in size materials and illumination to the type of activity to which they pertain, and
neighborhood they are located in. Again we do not believe that exceptions for larger or more
numerous chicken head signs are appropriate here. Part D, it is the stated purpose of the City
Council to enhance overall property values and the visual environment in the city by discouraging
signs which contribute to the visual clutter of the streetscape such as oversized signs.
Exceptions for Chick-fil-A's larger and more numerous chicken head signs unequivocally
contribute to visual clutter at this location at the entrance to the Woodlands. Part E,
it is the stated purpose of the City Council to ensure that commercial signs are designed
for the purpose of identifying a business in an attractive and functional manner,
rather than to serve primarily as general advertising for the business. By including
a chicken head in its signage, the exceptions that Chick-fil-A seeks serve no purpose other
than as general advertising for their restaurant and chicken sandwich fulfillment center.
Section 10-8.10104, General Regulations, paragraph 8, information on signs.
Except for non-commercial signs, permitted signs shall contain only the name of the business,
the type of the service rendered, and the principal brand names or classification of
merchandise for sale. Here, Chick-fil-A's signage goes beyond this regulation by unnecessarily
including a chicken head. Section 10-8.111, exceptions. Exceptions to the City sign ordinance
can be granted if the signed size and placement limitations or aesthetic objectives of this
chapter shall be followed as closely as practicable. The intent and purposes of the sign regulations
shall be followed as closely as practicable. And an exception may be granted when it can
be demonstrated that the signs are necessary to further a public use or public benefit.
The staff report references none of these sections from the city sign ordinance and
none of these sections are satisfied for the exceptions that Chick-fil-A requests for its
chicken head signs. And I'll note that I believe all of the signs that were referenced, including
in the presentation tonight by staff as examples of larger signs, are signs that are facing
the interior of a shopping center.
What's being ignored is that these Chick-fil-a signs will be essentially a beacon of chicken
head signs at a very prominent corner facing the exterior of the shopping center at the
entrance to the woodlands.
Staff's approach to this issue is that what's permitted in any one part of Walnut Creek,
for whatever reason, is precedent for any other part of Walnut Creek.
Again, that is a ridiculous approach that conflates all parts of the city.
Instead, how about sticking with the city's sign ordinance and the master sign program
for Citrus Marketplace?
Two signs, maximum, two feet.
Chick-fil-A has gotten everything that it's asked for here, so this is your chance to
represent the residents of Walnut Creek in this one regard by not allowing larger or
more numerous chicken head signs at the entrance to the Woodlands.
No matter what, we are going to wind up with Chick-fil-A's chicken head signs at this
prominent corner.
We implore you to not blight our neighborhood by allowing these signs to be larger or more
numerous than is permitted.
Please do not turn the entrance to the Woodlands into a beacon of chicken head signage.
Thank you.
I'll start with the questions because I would like to know, where is the 48 inches?
I assume you did that to scale, starting at the top with the comb?
Okay. Thank you. Other questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Anderson?
I have a few. One thing that I was curious about as I came in here as I
looked at the through the staff report and the other materials was whether
because they seem to be treated differently whether the first letter of
Chick-fil-A was indeed a letter or a logo. And I think you've argued for the
latter by describing it as a chicken head sign several dozen times and as a
C not once. So for logos there's apparently neither in the sign rules for
the shopping center nor in the city sign ordinance. There's no specific limitation
And they tend to vary from three to four to five feet or there abouts in different locations.
Why should we not consider a chicken head not to be a logo?
What distinction would that make, whether it's a logo?
Well, because the size issue is because letters are only allowed to be two feet tall, but
logos don't have that limitation.
Well, it certainly serves as the letter C in their, you know, in the name of, in their
signage.
So, it serves as a letter.
Without that, then it would not be spelling out the name of the business.
But given your characterization, would it not also serve as a logo?
I mean, look at that and, you know, it's Chick-fil-A, because it's their chicken head.
Right.
It's also the C that is the beginning, the first letter in the name of the business.
And I'd also note that in the staff report they also do describe it as both a letter
and a chicken head.
Right.
So it is both.
It is both, but again, I think there's a big difference between this, whether it's seen
as a letter or a logo, and everything else that we've seen tonight, which is all of those
other signs are facing the interior of a shopping center, they're not at the entrance to a neighborhood.
If you drive down Oak Grove right now, you see shopping centers and trees, but there's
no one business that stands out.
This is going to be a blaring beacon for Chick-fil-A if the signs that Chick-fil-A wants to put
up at the level that they're going to put them up at the second story.
I'm sorry, because it's not connected to other buildings?
Pardon?
Because it's right at the corner of Oak Grove and Citrus.
There are no other businesses on corners?
I'm sure I understand.
There are, but this is going to stand out like no other business in that area.
And I'm honestly interested whether Chick-fil-A would be amenable to the same signage specifications
that Bank of America had, the same height, same size of lettering.
That was something that I think would be acceptable.
All right.
Thank you.
Other questions?
Commissioner Ward.
I just wanted to note that the staff report
did include all of the correspondence that we received
and that, you know, I know I did
and I think my fellow commissioners read
and considered all that information very carefully,
including taking time off work today
because we're all volunteers
to consider late arriving materials
that arrive both in two chunks before noon
and then directly before.
So I don't think that the staff report
is inconsiderate in that regard,
nor do I think this commission has ever not considered
very carefully and read very carefully
all of the input that we've received from the neighbors.
So I have to, I would hope that you would possibly correct
that characterization in your presentation
because we are very careful in that regard.
At least I am.
Certainly, and I recognize that.
I was speaking to the written staff report
that leads to the recommendations,
but I understand that the letters
are obviously part of the package.
included all that correspondence.
Yes.
So I consider that to be an entire package
of the staff report that's provided to us.
Okay, thank you.
Other questions?
Thank you.
And at the end of the,
I'm sorry, I missed you down there.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for speaking with us
and explaining what it is that you wanted us to look at
in our consideration for the decision today.
I did want to ask, so I think you mentioned that the position is that three signs is
excessive, but two signs is sufficient, is that an accurate statement?
Two signs is consistent with what's permitted here, and so in terms of the number of signs,
that's not something that we would take issue with.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
If it were two signs, is there any preference
on which elevation they would be on,
like northwest or south, if there was a choice
of where they would face?
I haven't given the location specific between which,
I assume they would be facing as prominent as possible.
They're going to try to call as much attention
to their chicken business,
and I haven't thought about which location,
which elevation they would occupy.
What I suggest that, if I suggest that the most prominent
being the sides that face Citrus and Oak Grove,
would that be a reasonable conclusion?
Yes.
Okay, all right.
Thank you.
Last call for questions.
Thank you, and you will have a chance
for a rebuttal at the end.
Okay.
The next appellant, please, which I believe is Chick-fil-A.
All right, thank you for allowing me to speak.
Nathan Loveland, 4G development.
I represent Chick-fil-A as a development consultant.
I did submit the development applications on this project
as well as the second appeal to allow the third sign.
So in the appeal, the reason we appealed to start with that
was because the master sign program allows two signs
based on two road frontages, correct?
And when we went to the original design review board,
we spoke to them about the design of our building.
And one of their concerns was that our entrances
were facing the parking lot.
So what would people do on the corner
of Citrus and Oak Grove there?
They would have to walk around the building,
come in through the parking lot.
And they said, no, we want you to put your entrances
out on the street where people can come in.
It's a, we want it to be pedestrian friendly.
So we said, okay, we will rearrange our building
and we customize this building.
This is a one-of-a-kind design, one-of-a-kind floor plan,
and we will put all the dining room on one side
so that entrances can come in from both sides
of the building, from the parking lot,
obviously where our ADA stalls are,
as well as the pedestrian traffic
and the side with the patio.
And the Design Review Commission said,
we like that idea, we want you to go home,
flush that out, bring us back some plans.
And we asked, would you allow us a sign in our parking lot
where we have a public entry, both at the ADA stalls
and at the rest of our parking lot.
And they said, yes, that's reasonable request.
We would support that.
And they stated that in their letter, May 17th, 2023.
We also, when we went to that,
we talked about the letter height.
We talked about the amendments.
We asked if the Chick-fil-A logo could be larger
than the rest of the lettering
because the master sign program
did indicate 20 inch lettering.
When we get to a master sign program,
that's a little bit vague,
doesn't have all the answers we need,
we go to decision making baudings like design review.
Hey, what can we do here?
How do we work with this?
Some of this language is vague, 24 inch letters.
That is a logo, that is Chick-fil-A's logo,
and it is a separate piece that gets attached to the sign.
It is even manufactured individually,
then it is attached to the rest of the script lettering.
We also have some other options,
box signs that have the Chick-fil-A logo.
Those weren't a good fit in this area.
We heard from many people, including the design review,
they don't like that sign.
Don't put that here.
We said, okay, these are scaled back signs for this area,
for this particular establishment.
Every Chick-fil-A that we install,
a five foot sign with a five foot,
it starts with a five foot logo,
and we're about three and a half letters.
There are some rare cases where we drop below that.
Walnut Creek is one of them where you have
a four foot seven inch sign on the back of the building
on the parking lot side.
And there are other places where we scale them down.
The ones that are scaled down significantly
past four feet are at an inline store.
Maybe you see them in the airport,
maybe you see them in a shopping center.
We have a brand new one in Pleasanton,
that is a inline store.
Used to be a Sweet Tomatoes, now it's a Chick-fil-A.
You'll see signage there.
Those are inline stores,
they're not freestanding buildings.
So I just wanted to note that
this was all carefully flushed out
and talked with the Design Review Board.
We went to a working session in May of 2023.
We talked this out, what do we design,
how do you want to see it, what can we bring back.
What we brought back to them a few months ago
was pretty much everything they asked for
with our request that were originally stated in May of 23.
These are the signs we're looking for.
Additionally, when we submitted our application
for this project and we received those comments
from Design Review Board, this hasn't changed.
The entire package that went through
the entire staff's analysis
that went through the original planning commission,
that went through the original city council hearing,
the original DRC,
all of those had this exact sign package in it.
We haven't changed this along the way.
We haven't modified, we haven't gotten bigger.
We haven't gone after anything different.
We have been 100% clean and transparent from the beginning
in exactly what we wanted on this building
and what we asked for in our applications.
When we held our community meeting in December of 2023,
we had 30 inch by 40 inch foam boards
of the elevations and the signs on easels
at the facility where we had the meeting.
Our goal was to draw input from the community.
How can we, what do you think of our building?
What do you think of the signs?
What do we change?
How do we make it better?
The Design Review Commission is interested
in hearing what the community has to say.
They want us to bring the comments back.
At that meeting, nobody cared about the building.
most of it was focused on traffic,
most of it was focused on all the other issues
around the site and we worked through
and talked through that multiple times.
Hey, but what about the building?
We don't care about the building.
We think that's a good looking building.
We don't want it here on this corner.
We heard those comments, we understand,
but we presented all of that material at that meeting.
We know that this master sign program
has its limitations in both the text,
has its limitations on what signs are allowed.
And we also know that the landlord has a desire
to modernize the shopping center
to help make some of the things more modern.
This was written in 1996.
We know that the landlord has a desire
to modernize this master sign program
and to make it more fitting to the times that we're in.
We understand that and that's why we wanna take
a leading step on making these changes.
And lastly, we wanna note that we have only asked
for the third sign on the third elevation
because it is in the parking lot,
because it does have a public entry door
coming in from that side of the parking lot.
The master sign program tells us
we can have those two signs on the road frontage.
And sorry, yeah, the slides don't really line up.
My slides that I have here
I'd like to flip through real quick,
are just to talk through some visuals real quick
of what we have going on.
So right here, this is the Chick-fil-A.
These are perspective drawings, okay?
These drawings are for the most part,
they are to scale, not exactly.
Those Chick-fil-A signs, that's roughly four feet tall.
If you were to take a clip of that and bring it down
and stand it next to the gentleman about to walk
in the door, I think you'd find that that sign
probably looks a little bigger on this picture
than probably what five feet is.
That's roughly, but that's a perspective drawing
to show you this is what we want the store to look like.
Next slide.
So this is a clip from our letter that we got
from the Design Review Commission in May 17th, in 2023.
And as far as their comments on signage,
we support the MSP amendment to allow more than two signs
and the letter height to be larger than 24 inches.
Now, when we're talking about this sign,
I also wanna remind and make it clear,
the chicken logo is larger.
We're keeping the rest of the letters at 24 inches.
They, and they, this is why we went ahead and designed this.
This is why we went ahead and asked for these amendments
because back in 23,
we understood that these would be supported.
Here's what it looks like
if you squish the chick fillet sign
with all its ratios down to two feet
and you put it on the building.
One of the comments we got
from the Design Review Commission on our last visit,
they don't like these blank white parapets.
They don't like these blank white walls.
They think it looks, there was too much blankness there.
They talked about bringing the stone veneer up,
putting a different line across it,
bringing our architect features up,
kind of in reducing the amount of blank space that's there.
If a two foot sign is put up there,
I think that kind of counteracts that
and makes the wall look even more blank.
I don't think this looks good.
I don't think this is what we would,
or anybody would want designed
at the entrance to their neighborhood.
I don't think this would go down as people saying,
hey, that looks really great.
I think most people would say, what happened there?
Why did the sign get squished down so small?
In this case, I clipped the signs.
I brought them down.
I don't know if the pointer works on a screen,
but I basically copied them
so that the perspectives can be seen.
Roughly a tabletop is 30 inches high.
You can see that the sign is roughly 24 inches.
You can, the bottom of our windows sits at 24 inches
so you can see roughly that the perspective here is accurate.
So this is also some elevations with dimensions.
It's tough to see because of the size of the screen,
but the Chick-fil-A logo and script lettering
has been squished down to 24 inches
with the logo being 24 inches.
Actually, the rest of the letter ends up
right about one foot, visual graphic of that.
Here's an example of what all block two foot lettering
would look like.
In this case, if we were to go with absolutely no branding,
no logos, and just go with normal block lettering,
the square footage of the sign grows.
So I'm not sure how we comply with making small
or more compressed, more elegant featured signs
on the building by adding a bigger sign.
The way you calculate the square area
on the sign obviously is highlighted in yellow below.
It's with all the lines drawn around the sign.
You can see that the F is the only actual two foot letter.
Every other letter falls slightly below two foot
when we squish it down to do two foot lettering.
This is a four foot sign.
This is what we propose at the store
in Walnut Creek on Oak Grove.
This is what a five foot sign looks like.
It's only there to show how the area calculates
and how the area grows.
This is a standard Chick-fil-A sign
that we start every prototypical model with
when we start working with a city.
And then we work from there and we work our way down.
At this point, I'd like to take any questions
and I'd like to see if I can't explain anything further.
If I need to go back a slide, just let me know.
Thank you.
Started out with questions.
Oh, Commissioner Ward.
Would you be willing to consider
turning off the lighting of the sign,
particularly the one that faces Citrus Avenue
when the restaurants closed?
Yeah, I actually text Chick-fil-A about that question
and the operators I talked to said
the sign lighting is connected to their building lighting.
So at night, one of the last things they do
is they turn their light switch off.
So actually all the lights will go off
when the business closes at 10 p.m.
Oh, thank you.
That's very helpful.
Yes, and they're closed on Sundays,
so there's no lights on on Sundays.
Other questions?
Mr. Anderson.
If you were restricted to two signs,
Where would you put them?
We would put them on our two road frontages.
Okay.
Commissioner.
Okay, so thank you so much for taking the time
to explain to us what your intent is
and what it is you hope to see.
So some of the things that I wanted to observe
and just confirm my understanding is that,
so normally the, if there were no modifications to the,
I guess the size of the logo to the,
with respect to the rest of the script,
it would be five feet and roughly three and a half feet?
That's correct.
That's correct.
The standard sign that we would put on a building
would start out at this.
Now, just because this is the standard size
doesn't mean that this goes on every building.
There's many cases where we do shrink this down
a little bit because it fits the elevations better
because it blends in with the lines on the building.
Okay, so then with respect to the sign
that we're looking at right now,
the one that has a four foot chicken head
and then a two-foot script.
Is this modification made in response to community feedback
or was it more to, I guess,
for the aesthetic visuals of the building?
Yeah, for the aesthetic visuals,
and one of the things we do when we start a project
is read all the literature about,
in this case, the plan development,
the master sign program,
and we knew right away two-foot lettering is allowed here.
We went to the design team, we asked for two-foot lettering,
let's see what we can do, we looked at all our options,
and we said, hey, what's gonna look the best on the building
based on the size of the walls,
based on the size of the, those are a pair of pits up there
is going to be two foot lettering
with a four foot Chick-fil-A logo.
And that, and we looked at the master sign program
and we looked at the building and the design
and we said our best option here is to ask
if we can have the Chick-fil-A logo two feet taller
than the rest of the lettering in order to.
And if we add two feet to each Chick-fil-A logo
and we get three signs,
that's a total of four square feet per sign,
12 square feet extra for the entire building.
Okay.
And then I think you mentioned at the beginning,
I just wanna confirm this,
that the logo can be produced
or adjusted independently of the script.
So it's not always gonna be, you know,
two by four or five feet by three.
The ratios all go together.
Right, correct, there's a ratio
between the Chick-fil-A logo and the script.
And so one adjusts, the other one gets smaller
so that the ratios all stay together.
And then one more question.
The reason that we have a sign facing the parking lot
is because that's where the main entrance is
according to the building design.
A main entrance.
There's two main entrances
that equally serve the dining room.
There is also a third party meal pickup door
on the side of the building near the,
on the side of the building where the parking lot is.
I think the way we looked at it
and the way we designed the building,
it would be very awkward to come into a building
and pull up to the back of it and there's no signage on it.
Also, if you were coming, you know,
from the direction of Oak Grove towards Ignacio Valley Road,
there would be no signage visible to you
until you got close enough to the building
to see the sign on the west elevation.
Okay, thank you.
That adds a lot of clarity to what I'm looking at,
what I'm thinking about.
Absolutely.
And there's one more clarifying point
I wanted to add in my presentation,
and that's why I wanted to clarify
why we appealed the third signage.
When we went to the Design Review Commission,
again, leaning on what their recommendation was in May
with all three signs, having their support,
There was more discussion about the signs
and more discussion about the signs.
And what ended up happening was a condition of approval
was put on our project that said,
this building shall have no more than two signs.
Conditions of approval, in our view,
supersede master sign programs.
So the way that condition of approval was written,
doesn't matter what the sign program is in the city.
It doesn't matter what the master sign program is
in the shopping center.
We've been now conditioned to two signs on our building
for the duration of our existence.
And we felt that that actually was more restrictive
than the master sign program.
And that's why we appealed it.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Yes.
Would you, regarding,
I understand that you had a special meeting
to design meeting to discuss
and you went out there and brought the signs.
I heard you mentioned something
about having a new design of the building.
That was just for the two entrances, right?
Because it's facing two different streets.
So in that, you're trying to gather all the little pieces,
but the building, so the sign, really at this point,
the sign in its ratio is also a modification.
Because what I've heard you say is
the building is a one of a kind.
So you had to change your typical building
layout, and then also the sign size is not one of a kind,
but it's smaller than what you typically have, right?
And all of these things have been in response to a meeting
that you heard from DRC, a study session,
and also community feedback.
And that's what's driven or curated,
whatever it is that you have here,
from the architecture, the size of the sign,
the buildings, the entrances, is that what I'm talking about?
Yes, that's, I believe I understand correctly.
We went, it was actually a public hearing,
a design review.
It was not a work, it was,
I guess it's considered a working session,
a study session, but it was a public hearing.
It was a public hearing.
Here, a public hearing, and we came to that,
we showed prototypical elevations,
we showed our signage at that time,
it would have been much larger,
it would have been the five foot standard signage
on the building, I believe.
I'd have to go back and look at the elevations
that were part of that meeting,
but that was a public hearing session
where we came, we presented,
they gave us in-person comments.
They also gave us a written letter
of what they wanted to see us change about our site.
And it was at that meeting where they said,
we want your entrances to be on the corner.
We want you to come in from Oak Grove side.
I'm sorry, we want you to come in from Citrus Ave,
where the patio is.
We want the public to be able to enter from that corner
as if they come across the crosswalk
and they hit that crosswalk intersection,
we want them to enter your facility there.
We also understand that from a parking lot side,
you're gonna want an entrance in there as well.
We don't want your main only entrance
to be facing the parking lot
where the city is seeing essentially
the back of the building.
So we customized the way the interiors designed
so that all of our dining room
would be on one end of the building,
allowing access from both sides.
And it was at that working session
with the public hearing with the Design Review Commission,
we asked if we are asked to put a main entry
on the parking lot side and on the Oak Grove,
or if it would be the Citrus Ave side,
would we be allowed a third sign?
We would have our two road frontage signs,
putting one above the main entrance on Citrus,
one on the road frontage of Oak Grove.
Would we be allowed to put a third sign
at the public entrance coming in from the parking lot?
And that is their response, yes, we would support that.
Okay, and the reason I ask that is because,
typically speaking from a sign perspective
you have a door, an entrance in for a public, usually I would imagine that is why DRC connected
the sign to the door. So I just I wanted to understand like this came from a thought process
that DRC had. Understood. Okay, thank you. Other questions? I do have one quick question is
most of your Chick-fil-A projects only have one entrance for the public into the dining room?
No, normally there's more than one ingress. Normally that's driven by local code,
fire code, etc. There's normally a main entrance and then there's normally one or two other side
entrances to the dining room. But this is unique in that you have two main entrances, one from
citrus and one from the parking lot? Yes. Thank you. And any other questions? Thank you and you'll
have a chance for rebuttal. Yes sir. And we're going to go to the public testimony and I'm going
to turn it over to our city attorney for a quick introduction to that. So at this time,
there'll be a public testimony. If any member of the public would like to make public comment,
please fill out a speaker card and you can hand it to have an opportunity to speak.
first speaker please going once going twice and I see no public comments so we
will bring it back for rebuttals for the first appellant please come up and have
her five-minute rebuttal if you would like in terms of other public speakers I
believe the community is exhausted by this issue people turned out by the
I'm sorry.
I made a mistake.
I told I made a mistake and it's actually a pellet.
The second pellet goes first.
You will get your chance.
You will actually get to review, but everybody else.
Chick-fil-A, sorry.
Thank you.
I'll just basically take this opportunity to say that some of the rebuttal comments...
I've been on this project from the beginning.
I was the applicant.
This project did not get everything it wanted.
This project went through rigorous reviews.
This was a, this was a, I don't want to say a tough
or a very difficult project.
This project was looked at extremely closely.
This project has been under the microscope of the city.
This project has seen a lot of changes
and a lot of deliberation and a lot of exchange
with the staff and with the planning members of this city
to make this, to make sure that this store
was modified, changed, and was a fit for this community.
And I would just like to say, as I said
in the original planning commission hearing,
that I believe that the staff of this city
have been a very true gatekeeper of this corner
and of this community.
And to hear the comment that Chick-fil-A
was just given everything they wanted,
that is not the case at all.
And there were two years of planning
and two years of planning reviews, responses,
response letters, multiple studies, multiple edits,
changes to the plans, to the offsite work,
to the onsite work in order for this project
to get where it is today.
And I just think that it's been a long road getting here.
This project has not seen everything it wants,
but it is a good project.
This is going to be a great location.
We are happy to be here
and we are excited to serve in this community.
Thank you.
And for that, I'll yield back my time.
Thank you.
And now for the number one, please.
First to the notion that staffs,
discussions and proposals represent the community,
that is false, that is patently false
because the community turned out in droves in person.
There was, I believe, a six or seven hour meeting
regarding just this project generally.
People have written letters.
Staff is not representing the community.
I'm here on behalf of the community.
I don't believe there's anybody who's written in
or supporting these larger signs.
So that's just incorrect.
In terms of early communications between Chick-fil-A
and staff, the community was not part of those.
I've been involved with this proposal
since I became aware of it and there was an opportunity to.
And from the beginning, I've identified signage
along with other concerns and got no information,
no responses.
I just said, I have concerns about signage
and trying to find out more about it.
The signage that's being proposed here
is not the only signage that Chick-fil-A uses.
We've seen signs, staff has presented signs
regarding the North Main Street signage.
Well, this is also signage there.
This doesn't have the chicken head,
does not have the letter, you know,
it's not just the sea that is at the maximum height.
So it's not that Chick-fil-A can only have a sign that has a chicken head twice the size of the other letters.
There are other options that Chick-fil-A itself has availed itself of.
I would just close by beseeching you to please not brand our neighborhood as the chicken head community,
which is what is going to happen if these signs are approved with the exceptions that Chick-fil-A has requested.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I will now close the public hearing.
I'd like to invite the staff back
and to explain to us what would be in the proposed resolution.
If we did, what is in the resolutions
that has been proposed, whether we want to modify it or not.
The attachment one draft resolution before you today
is based on the information in the record.
Staff is recommending to deny the neighborhood appeal,
affirming Design Review Commission's decision
to allow the 48-inch tall letter height for the logo for the C
in Chick-fil-A, and also grant the appeal for the applicant
to reverse the Design Review Commission's decision,
basically amending the master sign program
to allow a third sign location for this business.
That is the recommendation in the resolution.
However, if the commission chooses
to go with the other two options that are listed on the slide,
you may choose to do that.
And city staff, you could direct city staff
to come back with another resolution
to make the findings for those.
Thank you.
So commissioners, as far as the location of the signs,
the number of signs, it was commented
there was only a single precedent.
And we're trying to, you know, so that everything
will be as that precedent was forever and on.
The fact is that in this shopping center, in this area,
there's only one freestanding corner building.
So the only possible precedent was the building
was there before it.
And in that case, the one freestanding building facing
two streets and the interior was granted three signs.
There's no other situation that could serve as precedent.
So having only one is in fact the maximum that you could have.
So I think there is precedent for three signs.
I'd like to hear more others weigh in on whether three signs is more appropriate than two.
As far as the larger chicken head, it does serve two purposes.
It's a logo and it is the first letter of the Chick-fil-A name.
we've seen with the other things there can be sometimes a logo and then one or two lines
of two inch, 24 inch letters. There can be a large logo over lettering because there's
no set limit on the size of the logo. So in fact if you took the Chick-fil-A name with
chicken head, separated the head from it, added a little C underneath. We would
approve, presumably, because there's no set limit on the size of the logo, we
could approve a logo either above or in front of the Chick-fil-A lettering. But
with the logo slash C, they serve two purposes. And because of the script in
the name, they've kind of seamlessly moved the logo into the name. So it takes up less
space that way. So it seems to me that given the precedent of the way we've dealt with
logos and the way we leave the restriction on the lettering, that having the logo as
as part of the name, even if it's somewhat larger, as a logo typically is, is appropriate.
You do want the C to be there because having a logo and then HIC-fil-A is a whole different
business plan.
So I would, I feel I'm going to be there to approve the 48-inch tall lettering.
And I'd be interested to hear others' comments on the 2 versus 3 signs.
You know Commissioner Ward
So I I too find it rather compelling that the building that in that unique location did have three signs
previously and each sign does seem to have a purpose and to make sense and to
help people identify the building and how to get into the building and
Where to park and do all the other things you need to do with regard to that
So I think that we've talked a lot about
finding and you know advertising that our community is open for business and the like and I think this is consistent with that philosophy I
am I
Do also think that
the proposed design is harmonious with the design of the building generally and that to make it a different scale or
size
Seems to make it less. So and you know, it is important that we
consider those factors I
also find it compelling that the sign as proposed is consistent with the city's sign ordinance
and that there is no clarity or specificity with regard to logos at all. And so it also seems
consistent with other logo signs that are found in similar shopping centers in the city. So I think
that's important to consider. So overall it seems to comply with all of the the factors that we
that we've asked the applicant to consider
and to comply with.
I also was confused as blight being given
as a reason to have to turn down this particular sign
because it doesn't seem to be in the categories
of what we would typically consider blight to be.
It's just not that, I mean, I understand
that the neighbors are opposed to it
and they don't like it the way it looks,
but that seems to be a different category of consideration.
So those are my thoughts with regard to that.
And I do appreciate both the work of the neighbors
to educate all of us as to their concerns and the values.
A lot of people spend a lot of time coming to talk to us
and submitting letters and generally participating
in this community process.
And I think that's really, really important.
And I do greatly appreciate that.
And I also appreciate the cooperation of Chick-fil-A
in terms of working with the city planning staff
and the various commissions for a very long time,
some of which was under some rather trying COVID conditions
as well to try and come up with a design
that would serve the needs
of all of the different stakeholders in the community
as best they could.
I think that that's shown in all the different changes that were made over the the years that
this application was being considered. So I do appreciate all of that. Mr. All right I wanted to
again as the other commissioners have done thank you to the applicant thank you to all the community
who has shown up here to express their opinions and their views on the Chick-fil-A restaurant.
It has been very heartening to see the civic process and on the move and to see it play out
even here tonight.
I agree with the opinions that the other commissioners
have expressed where I do see a purpose for each sign
that is being posed in the plans,
whether it's facing one of the streets,
whether it's facing the parking lot as a means of wayfinding
to find the restaurant from the larger community
as you get to there.
And then also how to get to the entrances
because the entrance does space the parking lot.
And I agree that the ratio of the logo to the script
already does represent a modification
to what otherwise would be a standard sign.
And I think that does testify or speak
to the applicant's willingness to work with the community
and to help create a space that is cohesive
with the shopping center and the community as a whole.
I do like the ratio of the sun.
I do think it is a good balance
of positive and negative space.
And from what we saw with the mock-ups,
the four foot logo and the two foot script,
I think is a pretty reasonable way to look at,
okay, well, here's the logo,
here's how we can find the restaurant.
It seems very balanced with respect
the negative space behind it. Thank you. I do want to thank the neighbors for giving their input.
It just shows how much we're not just going to let anything come into our city and I think that's
important to be able to have a thoughtful process and Walnut Creek is a city that is seen and
especially with everything that's been going on with retail and so people look to our city for
or what's new, where can we go spend our money,
which is really what we want for our economy
here in Walnut Creek.
The other day I didn't have the kids,
and so my husband and I frequented this area,
and we went over to the orchards,
and I had myself a Starbucks.
This was during the day,
and I could barely find a parking space
because it was bustling during work hours.
couldn't believe how packed it was. And as I was driving along Oak Grove Road, you
know, you see the T-Mobile, the Mod Pizza, the One Medical, and it's
visually, you know, shown there. But as I was driving and trying to find like
which coffee shop I wanted to go to or what store, it was nice for me as I was
driving to not see blank walls and I appreciated that. And you can see that
attraction that's bringing into the neighborhood and as you turn off Ignacio
and you make a left onto Oak Grove I felt like that was that opening that you
saw and it was such a well thought-out design from an architectural
perspective the signing perspective the parking everything flowed and I thought
well this is such a wonderful design no wonder you have so many people here. When
When I read, we did, Commissioner Ward was correct,
I took time off of work to read the correspondence
that was received, the last one, number five,
and I did receive, reviewed the chapter eight
signed regulations.
And the one thing that stuck out to me
was to enhance overall property values.
And we have some good friends that live near Citrus Avenue
and they so desperately want the revitalization
of this marketplace and the hope would be
that with something like this,
that it would attract the people to bring people in
so that the values in that marketplace
can potentially emulate
what the orchards would be emulating.
Now with regards to the amount of signage,
which is the other question that we're here to look at,
It makes sense to me why the DRC wanted openings.
You want to be able to not have a blank wall
at each of the main openings,
which is Citrus and Oak Grove.
Sorry, yeah.
And so you want to be able to have those doors.
I personally would not feel comfortable
walking into a door without a sign.
I want to know where it is that I'm walking to.
And so to me, the three signs make a difference
then it makes sense to me because they're the opening
to the store, you know where you're going again,
that way finding that we're discussing.
And also seeing the ratio of what it would look like
at the top 10 foot high,
I believe that's what it was, 10 foot high up.
It would be about 20.
Pardon me, 20.
Yeah, it would be between six.
Seeing that visual of the two foot height,
The only thing that came to my mind was,
if it were to be that height,
I would feel like it would be an afterthought,
that you just placed it there,
but you didn't think of the overall ratio.
And there is a beauty to architectural elements,
all balancing each other.
And I'm glad to know that those lights will be off,
so that it blends and it doesn't become like a,
hey we're open 24 hours a day because that is certainly that's in my mind that's not the purpose
of the sign. So though those are my thoughts um chair for the amount and then the size.
Okay I agree with my fellow commissioners um I would thank the neighborhood because you're a
very tight-knit neighborhood in a very vocal neighborhood which is very good uh we need that
very commitment to the city. We do need the signage. We need to do the wayfinding.
We need something over the entrances. We also need something on Oak Grove to tell people to turn.
This is where you turn to go find the parking lot. As to the size of the sea, I think it's
very appropriate to have the 48 inches. And I think we have consensus on that. Is that correct
on both of those i'll move um resolution an attachment one denying the neighborhood appeal
and affirming the design review commission's decision uh to approve the 48-inch tall letter
height a point of order for um the our city attorney is it simply that appropriate does that
the resolution. So it would be a motion to approve the resolution. Did you read the resolution? Attachment one. So it would be affirming in part and modifying in part the design review commission decision approving design review and master sign program amendment and denying an appeal filed by Friends of Walnut Creek and granting an appeal filed by applicant 4G development application.
Chick-fil-A restaurant design review and MSP amendment. Are you willing to make that a modification to your motion a
second. Thank you
Second
Secretary please call the roll
Commissioner quok. Yes
Commissioner Ward. Yes
Commissioner Klopp is absent commissioner Reiser. Yes, Commissioner Nating. Yes, Vice Chair Anderson. Yes, Chair Strongman. Yes
Motion passes. Thank you
And moving on to item number five, Commissioner,
Commissioned considerations, do we have any?
No reports by staff tonight.
And number six, Commission members and staff reports
are our announcements.
Any announcements?
Seeing none, we will now adjourn.
Thank you for coming.