No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Litchfields Appealcarr of �Agenda Item No: 25 ✓'^/�W�C Meeting Date: April 20, 2009 Department: Community Development Prepared by: Robert Bi Director City Manager Approval: �i SUBJECT: 721 — 737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's") - Appeal (AP09-001) of the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09- 002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) to allow: 1) an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an increase in the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32'; and 3) new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex with highway frontage; APN: 014-204-11; General Commercial (GC) District; Perry Litchfield, property owner; Robert Rogers for Barber Sign Co., applicant; Martin J. Malkin for Perry Litchfield, appellant; File No.: Appeal (AP09-001). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council either: 1) deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of the project applications by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment 1); or 2) consider Option 4 on page 7 of this staff report for approving sign revisions. BACKGROUND: Site Description/Setting: "Litchfield's" is located along the Francisco Boulevard East frontage road where westbound Interstate Highway 580 merges with northbound U.S. Highway 101. The site is a flat parcel, 92,275 -square feet in area (2.14 acres) and is developed with a complex of five separate buildings. Two buildings are single - story structures located along Francisco Boulevard (721 Francisco Boulevard East and 727/733/737 Francisco Boulevard East) and are occupied by commercial/bulk retail uses. The remaining three buildings are two-story structures located to the rear of the site, backing up to Front Street, and are occupied by a motel and County -operated child care center uses. The most distinctive visual element on the site is the 144 square foot, "Litchfield's" roof sign which faces Francisco Boulevard East and was designated a local landmark in 1998. Signs within the immediate vicinity of the site, along Francisco Boulevard East are predominantly individual channel lettering, based on the proximity of the motor vehicle dealers located west of the site and their high-quality Sign Programs. However, the commercial retail area east of the site contains an assortment of existing raised sign cabinet or light boxes. A vicinity and location map is included as Exhibit 1 of the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission Report (Attachment 5). Project Description: Master Sign Program The project proposes modification of the current Master Sign Program on the site to recapture visibility lost as a result of the Caltrans 'Gap Closure' improvements to US 101. Primarily, the project proposes to increase total signage on the site from 324 square feet, as currently approved, to 457.5 square feet. The FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa2e: 2 project proposes to increase the height of the existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32' above existing finished grade. A fourth tenant panel is proposed to be added to the freestanding pylon sign and these tenant identification panels would be enlarged. A new triangular wall sign is proposed to be located above the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use. Lastly, the project proposes to replace an existing wall sign, located at 721 Francisco Boulevard East (formerly "hiiko modern furniture"), and incorporate the signage back into the Master Sign Program for the site. Building Colors The project also proposes to amend the previously approved Environmental and Design Review Permit to legalize the recent change of the building trim color on the south frontage building, located at 727/733/737 Francisco Boulevard East, and to change the trim color on the north frontage building, located at 721 Francisco Boulevard East. The approved trim color is "Peppergrass green" or a dark shade of forest green and the project proposes a "Legend tan" or a light shade of tan. The project does not propose to change the building color from its existing dual color palette ("Legend Tan" and "French White" or a shade of off-white), which also matches the colors of the proposed freestanding pylon sign structure. Review and Action by Design Review Board and Planning Commission: On February 3, 2009, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project and continued the item after unanimously concluding that the proposed signage was excessive and unnecessary. The DRB found the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign to be a "gateway sign", visually significant to the southern entrance to the City, and recommended that the design of the proposed 32' tall freestanding pylon sign should integrate better with this historic sign by reducing the height and being better designed overall. The DRB expressed its support for an increase in the height of the freestanding pylon sign only as much as to regain lost highway visibility, which they determined to be approximately four feet (resulting in a maximum 25 -foot high sign). Instead of returning to the DRB with revisions to the project, the property owner requested that the project be presented, in its current form, to the Planning Commission at the earliest opportunity. On February 24, 2009, the Planning Commission (Commission) reviewed the project and unanimously denied the project without prejudice (vote 4-0 with Chair Pick and Commissioner Paul absent). The Commission found it troublesome that the project's design issues could not be resolved during DRB review. The Commission determined that the project actually sought lost store visibility, which cannot be recaptured by taller sign or more signage on the site. The Commission supported comments made by the DRB that, to suspend or set aside sign design standards in order to accommodate temporary downturns in economic cycles would do long-term harm to existing and future businesses and residents. The Commission expressed sensitivity to the current economy concurring that it has negatively affected not only the owner but the property tenants as well. However, the Commission found that loss of sales was not a valid finding for amending the existing Sign Program. The Commission was also unable to support the Exception finding required to approve a 32' -high freestanding pylon sign. A summary of the DRB review is provided in the meeting minutes presented in Exhibit 7 of the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5). A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-03 and the February 24, 2009 meeting minutes are also attached (Attachments 3 and 4). ANALYSIS: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on February 24, 2009: An appeal of the Planning Commission's action was filed by Martin Malkin, attorney for the appellant property owner. A copy of the appeal letter is attached (Attachment 2). The appeal cites six answerable general and specific appeal points, which are listed below in italics followed by staffs response (Staff is unable to respond to a seventh appeal point; in that, it simply reserves the right to make further unknown and unidentified appeal points.): 1. "The action of the Planning Commission amounted to an abuse of discretion in that the record supports a finding of approval as opposed to denial of the application." (underline added) Staff Response: The Planning Commission has the review authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny signs requiring a "major" Exception. Since the project requires multiple permit approvals, the Commission also has exclusive and final approval authority over these related applications. During the Commission hearing, Mr. Litchfield and his project team (Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Company, SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 project applicant; Ken Kurtzman, project architect; and Martin Malkin, project counsel) were each given an opportunity to present the project, which they each did individually. Minutes from this hearing show no bias, or improper comments made, from any of the Commissioners at any time. The permits requested by the project are quasi-judicial actions, which involve the exercise of discretion by the hearing body (the Planning Commission). Approval of the project must be supported by all of the required findings set forth in the Sign Ordinance of the San Rafael Municipal Code. The Commission reviewed the project at the February 24, 2009 hearing and, while indicating interest in continuing the item to allow for revisions, ultimately denied the project based on Mr. Litchfield's request that the Commission take action that evening. During this hearing, Commissioner's Colin and Kirchmann specified their inability to make Finding #2 required to grant an Exception to the sign height. The public record on the project contains evidence that the Commission exercised clear sound logic, fairly and impartially, in its decision-making to deny the project, which was based on the inability to make the required findings. 2. "The denial of Mr. Litchfield's application violates the United States and/or California constitutions in general and specifically with respect to the First Amendment and those section of the federal and/or state constitutions which deal with Equal Protection and Due Process" (underline added) Staff Response: While the appeal does not specify any legal authority or argument supporting this constitutional claim, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the issue and found it to be without merit. Section 14.19.022 of the Sign Ordinance expressly prohibits regulation of the message content of signs so those general allegations are incorrect. In terms of the due process protections under the First Amendment, Mr. Litchfield as the property owner, and the proposed project have been afforded fair and timely notice and hearing through two, separate public forums: the February 3, 2009 DRB meeting and the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The appellant additionally asserts that the project is being denied Equal Protection because the proposed signs are being held to a different, higher or stricter standard than other Sign Programs that are similarly situated, such as the Best Buy (700 DuBois Street) and the Shamrock Center (647-655 Irwin Street). These sites are uniquely different from Litchfield's by their: size; location; visibility and significant setbacks from the street and freeway; and existing architectural design. The Litchfield's motel/bulk commercial complex is slightly over 2 acres in size, while the Best Buy site and the Shamrock Center are 3 -acres and 4 -acres in size, respectively. All three sites have visibility from the freeway (U.S. 101). However, unlike Mr. Litchfield's site, these other sites do not have direct frontage access or frontage road connection. Instead, these other sites are uniquely situated requiring vehicle traffic to navigate surface streets to find. These other sites, like Litchfield's, have had Sign Programs applications reviewed and approved by the same hearing bodies, which considered the unique locations of these sites, the appropriateness of their signage, and the compatibility of the signage with the existing architectural design. a "The subject application requested less than similarly situated projects which have previously received approvals of the City of San Rafael. Examples of previous approvals which requested more than the present application and were approved include, but not limited to, the Best Bu v application, as well as the Shamrock Center application for signage relating to Staples and CompUSA." (underline added) Staff Response: All sign applications, including the Sign Program previously approved at both 700 DuBois Street (Best Buy) and 647-655 Irwin Street (Shamrock Center), are reviewed and determined based on their own sign needs, unique site conditions, the architectural design of the buildings themselves and applicable sign standards, if any. The sign needs, site conditions and design compatibility for the Best Buy Sign Program approval were determined to be distinct to those for the Shamrock Center Sign Program approval. Similarly, the sign needs, the site conditions and design compatibility for the project and Litchfield's are distinct from those of Best Buy and the Shamrock Center. For comparison, the approved signage for Best Buy, the Shamrock Center, and other "big box" -type development are as follows: SAN RAFAEL MY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 Site Site Area Approved Sign Sign Types Freestanding Sign Freeway Area Height Setback Lltchfi ld s ;; 2 acres ,324 sft q, :Wall; Monument -- 50. 'snd-pylori Best Buy 3 acres 461 sq. ft. Wall and NA 125' monument Shamrock 4 acres 557 sq, ft. Wall, monument 21' 80' Center and pylon Toys R 6 acres 400 sq. ft. Wall and pylon 21' 250' Us/Borders Shoreline 42 acres 1,057 sq. ft. Wall, monument 25' 80' Center and pylon Each of these large commercial developments is unique unto themselves for different reasons. These other developments are on sites that are larger than the project site, and each have greater building or site setbacks from the freeway. Further, the signage for these other sites was determined to be appropriate for the individual site conditions and architectural design, and their approval was supported by the required findings. 4. "The City has set a precedent for allowing more than the signage requested by this application when dealing with other retail uses. Its attempt to distinguish this site from the others previously approved amounts to unlawful discrimination and abuse of discretion."(underline added) Staff Response: As discussed above in staff's response to Appeal Point #1, the Commission clearly stated its inability to make the necessary findings to approve the project, as proposed, particularly Exception Finding #2 to exceed 21' height limit for freestanding signs. In fact, both the DRB and the Commission agreed that there had been some lost visibility due to the Caltrans freeway modifications, but that the 11 foot increase (to a height of 32') was excessive for what was necessary to regain the lost visibility. There is no evidence in the record demonstrated that a 32' tall sign was necessary; therefore the Commission was unable to make the required findings. The public record on the City's review of the project application reflects absolutely no discrimination or arbitrariness in providing services to Mr. Litchfield on the basis of race, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, martial status, medical condition or political affiliation. Minutes from both the DRB meeting and the Commission hearing show no bias, or improper comments made, from any of the DRB members or Commissioners at any time. Throughout the processing of the project applications, staff, the Board and the Commission have all indicated the hope to work with the applicant to help regain the partial visibility of the freestanding pylon sign lost during the ongoing freeway improvement project by Caltrans. However, the applicant chose not to accept the comments and recommendations from staff, DRB and Commission (until recently as discussed below). As stated previously in staffs response to Appeal Point #3, all Sign Program applications are reviewed and determined based on their own sign needs and unique site conditions. The approved Sign Programs for both the Best Buy and Shamrock Center do not constitute a precedent in that their sign needs and unique site conditions are distinct from the project applications and the Litchfield's site. 5. "The Design Review Board and the Planning Commission failed to follow its own rule and regulations, both procedurally and substantively." Staff Response: As stated previously, the Commission has the review authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny signs requiring a "major" Exception. Since the project requires multiple permit approvals, the Commission also has exclusive and final approval authority over these as well. The DRB serves as an advisory board to the Commission on design -related issues, including signs (i.e., location, type, colors and materials, height, etc.). Although the applicant requested that the DRB not continue the matter, but, rather that a recommendation be made (either for approval of denial), the DRB did not find that recommending denial was appropriate at the time since it found that there were further revisions that could be made to the signage that could address the Board comments and did not believe that the applicant had adequately attempted to find an appropriate design solution. For this reason, on February 3, 2009, the DRB continued the applications and recommended revisions to the project. As noted above, rather than returning to the DRB with sign revisions as SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 recommended, Mr. Litchfield requested that the project be presented, as proposed, to the Planning Commission at the earliest opportunity. On February 24, 2009, the Commission reviewed the project and, based in part on the recommendations of the DRB, found that the findings necessary for approval of the project could not be met. Mr. Litchfield once again requested that the Commission either approve or deny the project applications but not remand it back to the DRB for further review. The Commission subsequently denied the project applications, without prejudice. 6. "The failure to act affirmatively on the application, put in context with the facts presented in this situation, amounted to a taking without iust compensation as defined by the United States and/or California constitutions." (underline added) Staff Response: While the appeal again does not specify any legal authority or argument supporting this constitutional claim, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the issue and found it to be without merit. Mr. Litchfield contends that by failing to approve taller, larger and more signage on the site, the City has affected an unconstitutional taking of his property and/or property rights. Some sign visibility on the site has been impaired by the actions of Caltrans freeway improvement but not by the City's actions. The Signage is, and will continue to be, visible on the site, just not to the extent that Mr. Litchfield would prefer. Environmental Determination: Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15270(a) (Projects Mich are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts project that are rejected, disapproved or denied by a public agency. However, should the City Council choose to approve the project applications, staff will need to further evaluate the project for compliance with the CEQA Guidelines. Neighborhood Correspondence: The project review has included public meetings before the DRB and Planning Commission. Minutes from both meetings which include public comments are attached to this report. Notice of all public hearings for the project, including this appeal to the City Council, has been conducted in accordance with the public review period contained in Article 8 of the CEQA Guidelines and noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. All notices of public hearing for the project were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the site, to the neighborhood groups (the Canal Area Property and Business Owner's Association and the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods), and to all other interested parties. Copies of the public hearing notice and notification map for the City Council hearing is provided as Attachment 6. Staff has received no correspondence, written or verbal, as a result of all noticing on the project, including the appeal. Recent Activities: Following the filing of the appeal, City staff was contacted by the property owner to discuss sign alternatives for the purpose of resolving the appeal and securing staff support for a revised Sign Program. Several meetings were held and the following alternatives were discussed: Alternative #1 - Staff suggested reducing the freestanding sign from the proposed height of 32 feet to 25 feet, as this reduced height was supported by the Design Review Board. The property owner rejected this alternative indicating that the 25 -foot height would restrict the size of each tenant identification panel and not allow a fourth panel to be installed on the sign, which would result in inadequate visibility of all tenant sign panels from US 101. Alternative #2 - The property owner has proposed to reduce the freestanding sign height to 28 feet, which would allow for adequate visibility of four sign panels for tenants (see Attachment 7 for letter from Perry Litchfield, April 9, 2009). The freestanding sign would be redesigned to improve the quality of the materials and the illumination of the sign faces. The sign would include a shoebox-type frame with 'punched -through' letters that are illuminated from behind. Further, with this alternative, the property owner proposes to remove the wall sign that would be inset below the roof gable of the Motel 6 porte-cochere. Since a 28 -foot high sign height did not receive the majority support of the Design Review Board, staff would recommend that, if the City Council were to support this alternative, the City Council could refer SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 this sign alternative back to Design Review Board for review and recommendation. Following a recommendation of the Board, the matter would return to City Council for final action. Staff has reviewed Alternative 2 and presents the following advantages and disadvantages: Advantages 1. The 28 -foot sign consolidates tenant identification into one sign, which would reduce clutter, which is encouraged by the standards and findings of the City's sign ordinance. The other options would be to: a) increase the height of Motel 6 monument sign and match both freestanding signs at a maximum 21' sign height; or b) add a third freestanding sign for hiikobuilding. 2. Improved architectural compatibility with the buildings. This alternative has introduced elements into the sign that integrate the building design details and materials.. 3. Improved quality of materials 4. Improved quality of design and a superior type of illumination. 5. There is not much difference in sign mass and visibility between a sign height of 25 -feet and 28 -feet and bath sign heights would be below the height of Litchfield's sign and the palm trees would provide a backdrop. 6. 25 -foot height option is not precedent setting 7. Special circumstances for both sign height options = recent freeway improvements and height of solid wall between FBE and US101 (10+ feet vs. no wall or obstruction of up to 4 feet elsewhere) Disadvantages 1. A 28 -foot -high freestanding sign is potentially precedent setting. There are no other approved, conforming signs in the City with a sign height of 28 feet. While there are several freestanding signs in the City that are 28 -feet in height or higher, these are legal, nonconforming signs that pre -date the current ordinance restrictions. In reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative 2, staff recommends that the findings for approval of a Sign Exception can be supported based on the following: a. Special circumstances — Recent 'Gap Closure' improvements to US 101/1-580 interchange have resulted in a 10 -foot high wall abutting Francisco Blvd, a condition that does not exist anywhere else along this corridor, and 28 feet is the minimum height that is needed to regain lost visibility of the existing freestanding sign and to add one new tenant identification panel for a building on the site that was also effected by the wall. b. Improved relationship between the signage and building - incorporation of building design and material elements into the sign more effectively integrate with building design c. Improved safety and visibility- freestanding sign has lighter, more open base (less visually obstructive) and much softer, more sensitive illumination. CONCLUSION: The primary issue with this project is the height of the freestanding sign and the proposal to increase it from 21' to 32'.tall. The purpose of the height increase is to regain visibility of the existing freestanding sign that was lost due to the recent Highway 101 improvements. The DRB, Commission and staff all agree with the applicant's claim that the recent highway work has resulted in lost visibility of the freestanding sign and were willing to work with the applicant to find a sign height that would regain the lost visibility, but not create excessive height. However, the applicant's proposal for a 32' tall sign exceeds the minimum height necessary to regain the lost visibility. Furthermore, granting of a 32' tall sign could be precedent -setting in San Rafael where nearly all existing freestanding signs in the City are no taller than 21 feet. The project was not supported by the DRB, and ultimately denied by the Commission since the applicant did not clearly demonstrate that 32' was necessary to overcome the lost visibility. The DRB and Commission used their independent judgment to review the application materials and could not make the required findings to grant an Exception to sign height for a 32' tall sign. Given the discussion above, staff recommends that the appeal points do not have merit and that the appeal should be denied. Prior to the appeal, the property owner was unwilling to work with staff or the DRB to find a solution and elected to proceed ahead without any attempt to follow the recommendations. However, following the SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 filing of the appeal, the property owner elected to reconsider his position and attempted to work with staff to explore options. These discussions have resulted in an alternative design (Alternative #2) that staff can support. Since the appeal was been filed and scheduled, staffs initial recommendation was that the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission's action be upheld. However, staff finds that the alternative sign design proposal with a 28 -foot height and an improved design can be supported. If the Council finds this alternative design viable, the Council can elect to pursue one of the options listed below to support the alternative design. OPTIONS: The City Council has the following options: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project without prejudice; or 2. Grant the appeal and approve the Exception, Sign Program modification and Environmental and Design Review Permit amendment for a 32 -foot high freestanding sign and direct staff to return with a draft resolution for this action; or 3. Deny the appeal, approve a modified sign proposal and direct staff to return with a draft resolution with findings and conditions for this action; or 4. Continue the appeal and refer a modified sign proposal (Alternative #2) to the DRB for review and recommendation and have the matter return to the Council for final action. FISCAL IMPACT: The review and processing of this project is a private development and would have no direct fiscal impact on the City budget, given that the review, including the appeal, is subject to cost recovery fees. The site includes an existing motel operation which contributes transient -occupancy tax to the City's General Fund. The level of transient -occupancy tax generated historically and currently by the site is unknown. The crux of project application is that recent Caltrans construction has diminished freeway visibility of the site and has resulted in an on-going loss of economic vitality, including transient -occupancy tax created by the motel use and paid to the City's General Fund. ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt a Resolution denying the Appeal (AP09-001) and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) to allow: 1) an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an increase in the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32'; and 3) new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex (Litchfreld's) with highway frontage. ATTACHMENTS: Page No. 1. Draft Resolution Denying Appeal and Upholding Planning Commission Denial 9 2. Letter of Appeal from Martin J. Malkin, March 4, 2009 15 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-03 Denying Appeal, February 24, 2009 19 4. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, February 24, 2009 23 5. Planning Commission Staff Report and Selected Exhibits, February 24, 2009 31 Exhibit 1 - Vicinity/Location Map 43 Exhibit 3 — Letter to property owner from City staff, November 14, 2008 45 Exhibit 4 — Property owner's letter to Planning Commission, January 28, 2009 47 Exhibit 5 — General Plan Consistency Table 49 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paae: 8 Exhibit 6 — Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table Exhibit 7 — Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, February 3, 2009 6. City Council Public Hearing Notice and Notification Map 7. Letter from Perry Litchfield, property owner addressing alternative sign design, April 9, 2009 Project Submittal Package (Distributed to City Council Only) Alternative Design Submittal Package (Distributed to City Council Only) W:/ ... /CC Staff Report _4 20 09flnal.doc 53 59 67 69 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOF SAN RAFAEL DENYING AN APPEAL (AP09- 001) AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT (SR08-070), AN EXCEPTION (EX09-002), AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AMENDMENT (ED08-110) TO ALLOW: 1) AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF SIGNAGE; 2) AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF AN EXISTING FREESTANDING PYLON SIGN FROM 21' TO 321; AND 3) NEW BUILDING COLORS FOR AN EXISTING MOTEL/BULK COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPLEX AT 721-737 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST ("LITCHFIELW S") APN: 014-204-11 WHEREAS, on December 4, 2008, the applicant submitted applications for a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) to allow: 1) an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an increase in the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32'; and 3) new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex located at 721-737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's) in the General Commercial (GC) District; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) (Projects Which are Disapproved of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts projects that are rejected, disapproved or denied by a public agency; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2009, Staff deemed the applications complete and adequate for review by the City's Design Review Board (DRB); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2009, the DRB reviewed the project and continued the matter to a date uncertain in order to allow the applicant to address design consistency issues; and WHEREAS, at the February 3, 2009 DRB meeting, the property owner indicated that the proposed increase in height to the freestanding pylon sign and sign colors were "non-negotiable" elements of the project and further indicated he had no interest in pursuing the recommendations of the DRB; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission (Planning Commission) held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) and Exception (EX09-002), accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, voted unanimously (4-0 with Chair Pick and Commissioner Paul absent), to adopt Resolution No. 09-03a denying without prejudice the Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110), based largely on the DRB recommendation and the property owner's request that the matter not be continued further by the Planning Commission for revisions; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2009, Martin J. Malkin, attorney for the property owner, filed an appeal (AP09-002), pursuant to the provisions of San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 14.28, citing a variety of constitutional issues (i.e., Equal Protection and Due Process, takings without just compensation), abuse of discretion, unlawful discrimination, substantive and procedural failures in that the record of review supports an alternative fording of approval for the project. The appeal letter cites six general and specific appeal points that are answerable; and ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed appeal hearing to consider the Appeal (AP09-002), accepted and considered all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff, and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby denies the Appeal (A09-001) and upholds the February 24, 2009 decision of the Planning Commission (Resolution No. 09' 03) denying, without prejudice, a Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) to allow: 1) an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an increase in the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32% and 3) new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex located at 721- 737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's). The City Council fords and determines that the points of the appeal cannot be supported for the following reasons: Appeal Point #1: "The action of the Planning Commission amounted to an abuse o discretion in that the record supports a finding of approval as opposed to denial of the application." (Underline added) The Planning Commission has the review authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny signs requiring a "major" Exception. Since the project requires multiple permit approvals, the Commission also has exclusive and final approval authority over these as well. During the Commission hearing, Mr. Litchfield and his project team (Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Company, project applicant; Ken Kurtzman, project architect; and Martin Malkin, project counsel) were each given an opportunity to present the project, which they each did individually. Minutes from this Planning Commission hearing show no bias, or improper comments made, from any of the Commissioners at any time. The permits proposed by the project are quasi- judicial actions, which involve the exercise of discretion by the hearing body (the Planning Commission). Approval of the project must be supported by all of the required findings set forth is the Sign Ordinance of the San Rafael Municipal Code. As shown in the record, the Planning Commission reviewed the project during its February 24, 2009 hearing and, while indicating an interest in continuing the item to allow for revisions, ultimately denied the project based on Mr. Litchfield's request that the Commission take action that evening. During this hearing, Commissioners Colin and Kirchmann specified their inability to make Finding #2 required for the sign height Exception. The public record on the project contains evidence that the Commission exercised clear sound logic, fairly and impartially, in their decision-making to deny the project based on their inability to make the required findings. Appeal Point #2: "The denial of Mr. Litchfield's application violates the United States andlor California constitutions in general and specifically with respect to the First Amendment, and those section of the federal and/or state constitutions which deal with Equal Protection and Due Process. " (Underline added) While the appeal does not specify any legal authority or argument supporting this constitutional claim, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the issue and found it to be without merit. Section 14.19.022 of the Sign Ordinance expressly prohibits regulation of the message content of signs so those general allegations are incorrect. In terms of the Due Process protections under the First Amendment, Mr. Litchfield and the proposed project has been afforded fair and timely notice and hearing through two, separate public forums: the February 3, 2009 DRB meeting and the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The appellant asserts that the project is being denied Equal Protection because the proposed signs are being held to a different, higher or stricter standard than other Sign Program applications that are similarly situated, such as the Best Buy site (700 DuBois Street) and the Shamrock Center (647-655 Irwin Street). These sites are uniquely different from Litchfield's by ATTACHMENT 1 their: size; location; visibility and significant setbacks from the street and highway; and existing architectural design. The Litchfield's motel/bulk commercial complex is slightly over 2 acres in size, while the Best Buy site and the Shamrock Center are 3-acres and 4-acres in size, respectively. All three sites have visibility from the freeway (U.S. 101); however, unlike Mr. Litchfield's site, these other sites do not have direct frontage access or frontage road connection. Instead, these other sites are uniquely situated requiring vehicle traffic to navigate surface streets to find. These other sites, like Litchfield's, have had Sign Programs applications reviewed and approved by the same hearing bodies, which considered the unique locations of these sites, the appropriateness of their signage, and the compatibility of the signage with the existing architectural design. Appeal Point #3: "The subject application requested less than similarly situated projects which have previously received approvals of the City of San Rafael. Examples of previous approvals which requested more than the present application and were approved include, but not limited to, the Best By application, as well as the Shamrock Center application for signage relating to Staples and CompUSA." (Underline added) All sign applications, including the Sign Program previously approved at both 700 DuBois Street (Best Buy) and 647-655 Irwin Street (Shamrock Center), are reviewed and determined based on their own sign needs, unique site conditions, the architectural design of the buildings themselves and applicable sign standards, if any. The sign needs, site conditions and design compatibility for the Best Buy Sign Program approval were determined to be distinct to those for the Shamrock Center Sign Program approval. Similarly, the sign needs, the site conditions and design compatibility for the project and Litchfield's are distinct from those of Best Buy and the Shamrock Center. The approved signage for Best Buy, the Shamrock Center, and other "big box"-type development are based on their own merits. All are larger sites than the Litchfield's. These and other similar developments with approved Sign Programs (including Toys-R- Us/Border's and the Shoreline Center) have greater building or site setbacks from the freeway. Each has signage determined to be appropriate for their site and architectural design. The signage for these developments was approved based on required findings. Appeal Point #4: "The City has set a precedent for allowing more than the signage requested by this application when dealing with other retail uses. Its attempt to distinguish this site from the others previously approved amounts to unlawful discrimination and abuse of discretion." (Underline added) As discussed above in response to Appeal Point #1, the Planning Commission clearly stated its inability to make the necessary findings to approve the project, as proposed, particularly Exception Finding #2 to exceed 21' height limit for freestanding signs. The public record on the City's review of the project application reflects absolutely no discrimination or arbitrariness in providing services to Mr. Litchfield on the basis of race, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, martial status, medical condition or political affiliation. Minutes from both the DRB meeting and the Commission hearing show no bias, or improper comments made, from any of the Board Members or Commissioners at any time. Throughout the processing of the project applications, staff, the DRB and the Commission all expressed a hope to work with Mr. Litchfield to help him regain the partial visibility of the freestanding pylon sign lost during the US 101 `Gap Closure" improvement project by Caltrans. As discussed above in response to Appeal Point #3, all Sign Program applications are reviewed and determined based on their own sign needs and unique site conditions. The approved Sign Programs for both the Best Buy and Shamrock Center do not constitute a precedent in that their sign needs and unique site conditions are distinct from the project applications and the Litchfield's site. Appeal Point #5: "The Design Review Board and the Planning Commission failed to follow its own rule and regulations, both procedurally and substantivelu" (Underline added) ATTACHMENT 1 3 As stated above, the Planning Commission has the review authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny signs requiring a "major" Exception. Since the project requires multiple permit approvals, the Commission also has exclusive and final approval authority over these as well. The DRB serves as an advisory board to the Commission on design -related issues, including signs (i.e., location, type, colors and materials, height, etc.). Although the applicant requested that the DRB not continue the matter, but, rather that a recommendation be made (either for approval or denial), the DRB did not find that recommending denial was appropriate at the time since it was found that there were further revisions that could be made to the signage to address the DRB comments. Instead of returning to the DRB with revisions as recommended, Mr. Litchfield requested that the project be presented, as proposed, to the Commission at the earliest opportunity. On February 24, 2009, the Commission reviewed the project and, based in part on the recommendations of the DRB, found that the findings necessary for approval of the project could not be met. Mr. Litchfield once again requested that the Commission either approve or deny the project applications but not remand it back to the DRB for further review. The Commission subsequently denied the project applications, without prejudice. Appeal Point #6: "The failure to act affirmatively on the application, put in context with the facts presented in this situation, amounted to a taking without just compensation as defined by the United States and/or California constitutions." (Underline added) While the appeal again does not specify any legal authority or argument supporting this constitutional claim, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the issue and found it to be without merit. Mr. Litchfield contends that by failing to approve taller, larger and more signage on the site, the City has affected an unconstitutional taking of his property and/or property rights. Some sign visibility on the site has been impaired by the actions of Caltrans freeway improvement but not by the City's actions. The Signage is, and will continue to be, visible on the site, just not to the extent that Mr. Litchfield would like. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council's action to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action is based on the following findings: Sign Program Amendment Findings (SR08-070) The Amended Sign Program proposes signage containing some common design elements, including colors (red lettering over off-white background; "Motel 6" signage excepted which is red "6" with white edging and lettering and dark blue background) and illumination (internal illumination) though lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type and placement, in that: a) the projecting cabinet -type or light box "hiiko modem furniture" wall sign proposed for the north building fronting Francisco Boulevard East lacks sufficient relationship with the flush -mounted "Zebra Furniture" and Mattress Discounters" pediment wall signs existing on the south building; b) the placement of the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign conflicts with the existing 36' -high "Litchfield's" roof sign, a known historic resource listed as a State landmark; c) the placement of the proposed triangular "Motel 6" wall sign, located along the pediment facade of the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use on the site, is redundant given its close proximity to the existing "Motel 6" freestanding monument sign; and d) project was previously reviewed by the City's Design Review Board (DRB) on February 3, 2009, which unanimously recommended that the proposed signage, as presented, did not meet the findings required for approval of a Sign Program Amendment and continued the matter, giving recommendations to provide guidance for revisions to the project. 2. The Amended Sign Program proposes signage design which is out of scale with the design of the building and improvements on site and in the vicinity, in that: a) With the exception of the Shoreline Center, all of the approved freestanding pylon signs in San Rafael, including those in the vicinity of the site along Francisco Boulevard East and within approved Sign Programs, are a maximum of 21' above grade (The Shoreline Center is approved for a 25' -high, freestanding ATTACHMENT 1 pylon sign); and b) Both buildings along the frontage of the site, adjacent to the existing freestanding pylon sign, are a maximum of 21' in height, the same as the existing sign, where the sign standards limit the height of freestanding signs to height of adjacent buildings on the site. 3. The Amended Sign Program proposes the amount and placement of signage which is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity, in that: a) The site has 350 linear feet of building frontage along Francisco Boulevard East, where the sign standards would limit the sign area on the site to 350 square feet total or one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage; b) The current Sign Program approves 324 square feet of sign area and the project proposes an additional 133.6 square feet of sign area for a total of 457.6 square feet of total sign area for the site or a 41% increase in overall signage; and c) The proposed triangular "Motel 6" wall sign located along the pediment facade of the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use on the site is redundant given its close proximity to the existing "Motel 6" freestanding monument signage. Exception Findings (EX09-002) 1. The Exception to allow a freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height above finish grade is not necessary to overcome special or unusual site conditions such as exceptional building setback and lack of or limited visibility due to orientation, shape or width of the property and building improvements, in that; while recent Caltrans improvements to U.S. Highway 101 have created a loss of freeway visibility to the freestanding pylon sign, based on the project submittals and "drive-by" inspections, this "lost visibility" is approximately four feet and not 11' of additional freestanding pylon sign height as proposed by the project. No documentation of supporting information has been presented to identify this "lost visibility" requires 11' additional freestanding pylon sign height. 2. The Exception to allow a freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height above fmish grade is not appropriate in that it would allow signage out of scale with the building and site improvements, would not be compatible with other signs in the vicinity, and would not promote a good design solution, in that: a) While the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign is 36' -high which, together with the mature palm trees on the site that are of a similar height, helps to create some "relationship" with the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign, the bulk retail buildings along the Francisco Boulevard East frontage are both single -story with a maximum height of 21% b) All other freeway -oriented freestanding signs within the City are a maximum height of 21', with the exception of the 25' -tall Shoreline Center freestanding sign; and c) The proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign may negatively impact the "Litchfield's" roof sign, located 36' in height above finished grade, due to the poor quality design of the proposed freestanding pylon sign and its close proximity to the protected historic roof sign. (Better design solutions to the loss of freeway visibility of the freestanding pylon sign would include maintaining the existing pylon sign to 21' in height, limiting its use to non -motel tenant signs only, and upgrading these signs to a high-quality design while increasing the existing monument sign to another 21' pylon sign for exclusive use by "Motel 6" signage. The property owner, however, has indicated in the record that he is not willing to discuss design solutions unless they include increasing the height of the freestanding pylon sign to 32'). 3. The Exception to allow a freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height above finish grade would permit an improvement that would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on- or off-site. Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment Findings (ED08-110) 1. The project design is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that: a) The project would not be consistent with San Rafael General Plan policies, including ATTACHMENT 1 Neighborhoods Policy NH -7 (Neighborhood Identity and Landmarks), Community Design Policies CD -1 (City Image) and CD -4 (Historic Resources), and Culture and Arts Policy CA -13 (Historic Buildings and Areas); b) The project would not be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 (the Zoning Ordinance) which requires that all development promote design quality (As outlined above, the project proposes signage which lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type and placement and the design, amount and placement of signage is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity); and c) The project would not be consistent with the purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) which requires that all development promote design excellence and contribute to the attractiveness of the City (Again, the project proposes signage which lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type and placement and the design, amount and placement of signage is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity). 2. The project design would not be consistent with the applicable San Rafael Nonresidential Design Guidelines, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 11667; in that, the proposed freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height, would not respect the pattern, scale and design of the historic "Litchfreld's" roof sign, a known protected cultural resource 36' in height, and would create a visual distraction from this known historic resource. 3. The project design would not minimize adverse environmental impacts, in that; the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign may negatively impact the cultural resource value of the historic "Litchfield's" roof sign, located 36' in height above finished grade, due to the poor quality design of the proposed freestanding pylon sign and its close proximity to the protected historic roof sign. 4. The project design would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that: a) The project has been previously reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, and the Canal Area Property and Business Owner's Association, and, if approved by the Planning Commission, conditions of approval would be incorporated to minimize potential adverse impacts of the businesses and uses on the site and in the immediate vicinity; and b) the project does not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but will continue the commercial bulk retail, motel and daycare center uses that are either pemitted by right in the General Commercial (GC) District, pursuant to Section 14.05.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, or by existing Use Permit approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of San Rafael denies the Appeal (AP09-001) and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying, without prejudice, the Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) applications based on the findings listed above. I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, the 20`s day of April, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 6 City of San Rafael c/o City Clerk 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 L\w OFFICES OF MARTIN J. MALKIN 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 875 San Rafael, California 94901 Tel: (415) 459-2000 Fax: (415) 459-3668 e-mail: mjmlaw@earthlink. net March 4, 2009 via Hand Delivery RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 2U9 MAR -4 PM 3: 53 Re: Fi/e No: SR08-070 & ED08-110 Project- Sign Program Amendment for increase in Freestanding Sign Height and Area, and an Environmental and Design Review Permit for Revised Building Colors ("L&17fie/ds'q Address: 721 — 737 Francisco Blvd. East; APIC• 014-204-11 Applicant. Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Co. Appellant.• Perry Litchfield To Whom It May Concern: This office represents Perry Litchfield. In this regard, please accept this letter as a notice of Mr. Litchfield's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision announced at its February 24, 2009, meeting in relation to the above referenced matter. Mr. Litchfield appeals the decision denying the application for an increase in freestanding sign height and area, an addition of a Motel 6 wall sign, and an Environmental and Design Review Permit for revised building colors. At the February 24, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, the commission announced that it was denying the applicant's request, without prejudice. Mr. Litchfield believes that the requests contained in the application should have been approved in total. On behalf of Mr. Litchfield, this appeal is being taken on the following basis: I. The action of the Planning Commission amounted to an abuse of discretion in that the record supports a finding of approval as opposed to denial of the application; ATTACHMENT 2 March 4, 2009 City of San Rafael Page 2 of 3 The denial of Mr. Litchfield's application violates the United States and/or California constitutions in general and specifically with respect to the First Amendment, and those sections of the federal and/or state constitutions which deal with Equal Protection and Due Process; 3. The subject application requested less than similarly situated projects which have previously received approvals of the City of San Rafael. Examples of previous approvals which requested more than the present application and were approved, include, but are not limited to, the Best Buy application, as well as the Shamrock Center application for signage relating to Staples and CompUSA ; 4. The City has set a precedent for allowing more than the signage requested by this application when dealing with other retail uses. Its attempt to distinguish this site from the others previously approved amounts to unlawful discrimination and abuse of discretion; 5. The Design Review Board and the Planning Commission failed to follow its own rules and regulations, both procedurally and substantively; 6. The failure to act affirmatively on the application, put in context with the facts presented in this situation, amount to a taking without just compensation as defined by the United States and/or California constitutions; and 7. Such other and further reasons as shall be set forth prior to and at the hearing on this appeal. Enclosed herewith please find a check from my client in the amount of $2,999.99. Previous correspondence from the Community Development Director alleges that the city will not accept the Appeal unless this amount accompanies same. This is in spite of the fact that the city's own fee schedule calls for a $325.00 appeal fee for a non -applicant. Furthermore, the initial fees of $3,999.99 along with the purported appeal fee in the amount of $2,999.99 both represent fees were are in excess of any estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Therefore, they are in violation of California Government Code §66000 et.seq. See also, County of Orange v. Barratt American, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App 4th 420. March 4, 2009 City of San Rafael Page 3 of 3 Since the claimed fee in relation to Appeal is significantly more than that set forth in the City of San Rafael fee schedule, and since the fees for Application and Appeal requested by the city in order to consider this matter are excessive, the applicant reserves the right to seek a judicial declaration requiring the return of such fees, along with all other appropriate relief, including attorney's fees and court costs. Based on the above, it would be greatly appreciated if you would set this matter on the City Council's agenda for the next available meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, 1 14 Martin I Malkin, Esq. RESOLUTION NO. 09-03 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSIONDENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT (SR08-070), AN EXCEPTION (EX09-002), AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AMENDMENT (ED08-110) AND FOR NEW SIGN AND BUILDING TRIM COLORS AND FOR ADDITIONAL AND TALLER SIGNAGE ON A BULK RETAIL/MOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 721-737 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD EAST ("LITCHFIELD'S") APN: 014-204-11 WHEREAS, on December 4, 2008, the applicant submitted applications for a Sign Program Amendment (SR09-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) for new sign and building trim colors and for additional and taller signage to an existing motel/bulk retail development located at 721-737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's) in the General Commercial (GC) District; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the project has been determined to be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270(a) (Projects Which are Disapproved of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts projects that are rejected, disapproved or denied by a public agency; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2009, Staff deemed the applications complete and adequate for review by the City's Design Review Board (DRB); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2009, the DRB reviewed the project and continued the matter in order to allow the applicant to address design consistency issues; and WHEREAS, at the DRB meeting, the property owner indicated that the proposed increase in height to the freestanding pylon sign and sign colors were "non-negotiable" elements of the project and further indicated he had no interest in pursuing the recommendations of the DRB; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Sign Program Amendment(SR08-070), Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) and Exception (EX09-002), accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department Planning staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings on the Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070) application: The Amended Sign Program proposes signage containing some common design elements, including colors (red lettering over off-white background; "Motel 6" signage excepted which is red "6" with white edging and lettering and dark blue background) and illumination (internal illumination) though lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type and placement, in that: a) the projecting cabinet -type or light box "hiiko modern furniture" wall sign proposed for the north building fronting Francisco Boulevard East lacks sufficient relationship with the flush -mounted "Zebra Furniture" and Mattress Discounters" pediment wall signs existing on the south building; b) the placement of the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign conflicts with the existing 36' -high "Litchfield's" roof sign, a known historic resource listed as a State landmark; c) the placement of the proposed triangular "Motel 6" wall sign, located along the pediment facade of the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use on the site, is redundant ATTACHMENT 3 given its close proximity to the existing "Motel 6" freestanding monument sign; and d) project was previously reviewed by the City's Design Review Board (DRB) on February 3, 2009, which unanimously recommended that the proposed signage, as presented, did not meet the findings required for approval of a Sign Program Amendment and continued the matter, giving recommendations to provide guidance for revisions to the project. 2. The Amended Sign Program proposes signage design which is out of scale with the design of the building and improvements on site and in the vicinity, in that: a) With the exception of the Shoreline Center, all of the approved freestanding pylon signs in San Rafael, including those in the vicinity of the site along Francisco Boulevard East and within approved Sign Programs, are a maximum of 21' above grade (The Shoreline Center is approved for a 25' -high, freestanding pylon sign); and b) Both buildings along the frontage of the site, adjacent to the existing freestanding pylon sign, are a maximum of 21' in height, the same as the existing sign where the sign standards limit the height of freestanding signs to height of adjacent buildings on the site. 3. The Amended Sign Program proposes the amount and placement of signage which is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity, in that: a) The site has 350 linear feet of building frontage along Francisco Boulevard East, where the sign standards would limit the sign area on the site to 350 square feet total or one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage; b) The current Sign Program approves 324 square feet of sign area and the project proposes an additional 133.6 square feet of sign area for a total of 457.6 square feet of total sign area for the site or a 41% increase in overall signage; and c) The proposed triangular "Motel 6" wall sign located along the pediment facade of the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use on the site is redundant given its close proximity to the existing "Motel 6" freestanding monument signage. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings on the Exception (EX09- 002) application: The Exception to allow a freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height above finish grade is not necessary to overcome special or unusual site conditions such as exceptional building setback and lack of or limited visibility due to orientation, shape or width of the property and building improvements, in that; while recent Caltrans improvements to U.S. Highway 101 have created a loss of freeway visibility to the freestanding pylon sign, based on the project submittals and "drive-by" inspections, this "lost visibility" is approximately four feet and not l l' of additional freestanding pylon sign height as proposed by the project. No documentation of supporting information has been presented to identify this "lost visibility" requires 11' additional freestanding pylon sign height. 2. The Exception to allow a freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height above finish grade is not appropriate in that it would allow signage out of scale with the building and site improvements, would not be compatible with other signs in the vicinity, and would not promote a good design solution, in that: a) While the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign is 36' -high which, together with the mature palm trees on the site that are of a similar height, helps to create some "relationship" with the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign, the bulk retail buildings along the Francisco Boulevard East frontage are both single -story with a maximum height of 21'; b) All other freeway -oriented freestanding signs within the City are a maximum height of 21', with the exception of the 25' -tall Shoreline Center freestanding sign; and c) The proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign may negatively impact the "Litchfield's" roof sign, located 36' in height above finished grade, due to the poor quality design of the proposed freestanding pylon sign and -2- ATTACHMENT 3 its close proximity to the protected historic roof sign. (Better design solutions to the loss of freeway visibility of the freestanding pylon sign would include maintaining the existing pylon sign to 21' in height, limiting its use to non -motel tenant signs only, and upgrading these signs to a high-quality design while increasing the existing monument sign to another 21' pylon sign for exclusive use by "Motel 6" signage. The property owner, however, has indicated in the record that he is not willing to discuss design solutions unless they include increasing the height of the freestanding pylon sign to 32'). 3. The Exception to allow a freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height above finish grade would permit an improvement that would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on- or off-site. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings on the Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment (ED08-110) application: 1. The project design is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits), in that: a) The project would not be consistent with San Rafael General Plan policies, including Neighborhoods Policy NH -7 (Neighborhood Identity and Landmarks), Community Design Policies CD -1 (City Image) and CD -4 (Historic Resources), and Culture and Arts Policy CA -13 (Historic Buildings and Areas); b) The project would not be consistent with the objectives of Title 14 (the Zoning Ordinance) which requires that all development promote design quality (As outlined above, the project proposes signage which lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type and placement and the design, amount and placement of signage is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity); and c) The project would not be consistent with the purposes of Chapter 25 (Environmental and Design Review Permits) which requires that all development promote design excellence and contribute to the attractiveness of the City (Again, the project proposes signage which lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type and placement and the design, amount and placement of signage is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity). 2. The project design would not be consistent with the applicable San Rafael Nonresidential Design Guidelines, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 11667; in that, the proposed freestanding pylon sign, 32' in height, would not respect the pattern, scale and design of the historic "Litchfield's" roof sign, a known protected cultural resource 36' in height, and would create a visual distraction from this known historic resource. 3. The project design would not minimize adverse environmental impacts in that; the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon signmay negatively impact the cultural resource value of the historic "Litchfield's" roof sign, located 36' in height above finished grade, due to the poor quality design of the proposed freestanding pylon sign and its close proximity to the protected historic roof sign. 4. The project design would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that: a) The project has been previously reviewed by appropriate City departments, non -City agencies, and the Canal Area Property and Business Owner's Association, and, if approved by the Planning Commission, conditions of approval would be incorporated to minimize potential adverse impacts of the businesses and uses on the site and in the immediate vicinity; and b) the project does not propose a use or activity that is prohibited, but will continue the commercial bulk retail, motel and ATTACHMENT 3 - 3 - daycare center uses that are either pemitted by right in the General Commercial (GC) District pursuant to Section 14.05.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, or by existing Use Permit approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of San Rafael denies without prejudice the Sign Program Amendment (SR08-070), an Exception (EX09-002), and an Environmental and Design Review PermitAmendment (ED08-110) applications based on the findings listed above. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular City Planning Commission meeting held on the 20 day of February 2009. Moved by Commissioner Colin and seconded by Commissioner Sonnet. AYES: Commissioners: Colin, Kirchmann, Sonnet, Vice Chair Lang NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Paul, Chair Pick ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: R6rb6rt M. Brown, Secretary ATTACHMENT 3 - 4 - SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION BY: ' " slot�" i/ Maribeth Lang, Vice Chair I REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2009 ROLL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Lang Colin, Kirchmann, Sonnet Chair Pick, Paul Community Development: Raffi Boloyan, Principal Planner Caron Parker, Associate Planner Steve Stafford, Associate Planner AGENDA CONSENT 1. Minutes, January 27, 2009 PUBLIC HEARINGS UNAPPROVED 2. 88 Mitchell Boulevard (Main Street Moving) — Request for a Use Permit to legalize approximately 8,640 square feet of space currently used for high pile crate storage for an existing moving company. The existing one-story building totals 20,736 -square -foot of commercial space divided between three tenants; APN: 055-151-33; Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) Zoning District; Donald Rosevear, applicant; Samuel and Adrianne Knoles Trust, owner; File No.: UP05- 051. Project Planner: Caron Parker Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt 3. 712-737 Francisco Blvd. E (Litchfield's) — Requests for: 1) an amendment to an existing Sign Program to allow an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an Exception to increase the height of a existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32' where a maximum of 25' is allowed; and 3) an amendment of an existing Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex with highway frontage; APN: 014- 204-11; General Commercial (GC) District; Perry Litchfield, owner; Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Co., applicant; File Nos.: SR08-070; EX09-002 & ED08- 110. Project Planner: Steve Stafford Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt ATTACHMENT 4 SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 1 Vice Chair Lang noted for the record that the Commission received a late submittal by the property owner dated February 20th, 2009. 721-737 Francisco Blvd. E (Litchfield's) — Requests for: 1) an amendment to an existing Sign Program to allow an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an Exception to increase the height of a existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32' where a maximum of 25' is allowed; and 3) an amendment of an existing Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex with highway frontage; APN: 014- 204-11; General Commercial (GC) District; Perry Litchfield, owner; Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Co., applicant; File Nos.: SR08-070; EX09-002 & ED08- 110. Project Planner: Steve Stafford Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Steve Stafford, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report and recommended that the Commission adopt the Resolution denying the Sign Program Amendment, Exception, and Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment applications without prejudice, allowing the applicant to submit revisions to the project as requested by the DRB. Robert Rogers, Barber Sign Company, explained that the objective tonight is to receive approval from the Commission to restore visibility of signage lost by the freeway construction. He pointed out that the angle at that section of the improved highway is unique to the site and these are the only businesses impacted. They were taken back by the DRB's comments about the design of the sign because what they proposed is exactly what they acted on favorably on three separate occasions. Ken Kurtzman, architect, submitted four sets of photographs to the Commission for their consideration showing visibility of the property along East Francisco; properties on West Francisco; the wall itself, as seen from the site; and the Best Buy building on West Francisco Boulevard. The East Francisco photograph starts off with two pictures showing what was visible of the building prior to the concrete wall and the second photograph depicts how it appears today. The pylon sign is a 21 -foot sign and at the lower sign panel starts 10 feet above grade. The bottom photograph shows that the bottom half of that sign is cut off, so they lost 10 feet of visibility. Traveling westerly, the wall comes back down in height and the Ford dealership is seen along with its storefront, so they have good freeway visibility. The Litchfield building is no longer visible and has lost about 10 feet of visibility as seen in the photographs. The West Francisco photographs as one travels southemly, the Best Buy building is seen as well as the storefronts and floors. Litchfield's is the only one impacted by the elevation of the freeway construction. This wall has considerable height as seen from the photographs and, as a consequence of this additional wall height, 10 feet of pylon sign has been lost, which can never be recovered. Seeing the storefronts themselves can never be recaptured. As an architect, he finds Best Buy a handsome big box store, but it has the biggest sign he has every seen. They are enormous billboards, but they must be reviewed as what they are. They are 36 feet above grade. Precedent has been set for large signs, whether a pylon sign or painting the face of the SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 M building. He believed a tall pylon sign is literally the only way left for this building and tenants to have any visibility to the public. Martin Malkin, attorney representing Perry Litchfield, stated that when this freeway was being constructed all businesses along Francisco were being harmed. The construction ended, but what was left was a wider freeway more severely banked than before, so certain businesses were not as visible from the freeway as they had previously been. The freeway construction singled out the Litchfield property. Not only did the existing sign become less visible, but also it eliminated any storefront view. The view of the storefronts is enjoyed by just about all other businesses along East and West Francisco. By raising the sign only 4 feet to 25 feet, it will not bring back the visibility that the stores previously enjoyed of their storefronts. Providing greater visibility is the only way to compensate the buildings and tenants. They do not think the application is precedent setting, if approved. For example, Best Buy wanted those particular signs for the purpose of attracting customers, which is 36 feet. They are asking for 32 feet. He pointed out that while the final conclusion of the DRB is as stated in the staff report, several Board members found a sign of greater height acceptable. DRB Member Wise believed 27 feet was acceptable; Alternate DRB Member Garg found 26 feet acceptable; and DRB Member Summers found 26 to 28 feet acceptable. During discussions, the DRB found a sign of greater height acceptable. These are very tough economic times. Businesses are hemorrhaging and they must move quickly to provide tenants with the best possible advantage to thrive. They asked the Commission to treat this application with fairness and keep in mind a big box store was granted a number of signs than the sign they are proposing. They wanted to move this application forward as quickly as possible with the least amount of amendments. They further asked the Commission to approve or deny the application tonight. Perry Litchfield, property owner, stated the site has evolved from what was originally a drive right in off a dirt road into a complex with freeway frontage. It started with a guardrail that continued to grow in height and is now 12 feet high with a fence on top of it. They have essentially been placed in a hole. He would not go through all this trouble with this application if it were not warranted. They are seeking relief. There was no need to go back to the DRB because it was confrontational in his view. History was insignificant as far as the DRB Chair was concerned and what the City has done in the past with other applications. He asked for honesty, willingness and to have an open mind. He hoped they could figure out how to do what is right. It was suggested by several that 25 feet is the appropriate number in this case. He asked how that number was developed. He investigated what was needed to regain what was lost, which cannot occur and hoped for a pylon sign to see the signs. Store frontage is gone. Hiiko lost their storefront as well and that is the reason they are adding hiiko to the pylon sign. It is an attempt to provide more signage. In terms of fairness, a sign will go on the building by hiiko next week, which is a "for lease" sign. Hiiko lost their visibility and has been impacted by construction. Mattress Discounters is leaving as well due to visibility unless there is compensation or change. Zebra, like hiiko and Mattress Discounters, have asked for rent reduction due to the loss of visibility. Motel 6 has experienced a major decline in its business as the other tenants from the wall construction due to the complete loss of SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 7 visibility. In reality, revenue received from the property as a result of these four tenants approaches $60,000 per month and three of these tenants potentially are leaving due to loss of visibility. Tenants estimate a loss of $45,000 per month since this wall was constructed. From a legal standpoint, they look at Best Buy approval and asked how are they different. Best Buy has three signs that are 34 feet high. Two of the signs do not face a frontage road. Best Buy received more square -footage. They pay a 10% occupancy tax at the motel. This application has striking resemblances to what happened back in 1982. Then, there were efforts made by the City to take down the Litchfield sign because it was not wood, which was popular in 1982. They filed a lawsuit and after a trial the judge ruled that the Sign Ordinance was unconstitutional and the City could not remove the sign. To resolve the case, it was determined that historical designation be given to the Litchfield roof sign. Fairness would dictate equal protection that the City takes the same position it has with similar applications. He cannot draw a logical distinction between the Shamrock property or Best Buy properties and his. In the 1982 case, economic loss was not a factor. Today economic loss is significant. They are trying to recapture freeway visibility what was present before Caltrans improvements to 101. Before the highway improvements, motorist could look over the low wall that separates the highway from East Francisco and see Motel 6. They had discussions with TAM and Caltrans in regard to mitigating measures, possibly adding a sign on the freeway as done on Highway 5. His goal tonight is to mitigate the damage that has occurred. He has no desire for litigation. He wants to move forward to resolve the matter and keep tenants in place that have been impacted in a major way. He noted a problem in the process to resolve and establish reliable solutions. He desired evidence from staff as to how they determined 25 feet. He agreed with DRB that the hiiko modern furniture building could be separate from this application. He spent over $20,000 to change the color. He made it clear that due to the time constraints, if the Commission is not inclined to approve, then he respectfully requested that the Commission deny in order for him to quickly appeal and move to the next level. He cannot afford to wait months to get this matter resolved. Commissioner Kirchmann asked which of the four tenants has suffered the greatest loss of sales as a result of the wall. Mr. Litchfield believed Motel 6. The rest of the tenants seem to be on equal footing, but he must investigate. Commissioner Sonnet understands visibility of the storefront being lost forever, and asked what is desired to be seen, just the sign or the pedestal as well. Mr. Litchfield responded that under the present proposal just the bottom of the last sign is seen. To see the pylon itself, the design will require going higher than 32 feet. They were charged with a task of going up, but as little as possible. After conducting an analysis, they came up with 32 feet with the addition of the other panel. Without that panel, it would be approximately 27 or 28 feet. For the pylon sign to be seen from the freeway, it would require the sign to be higher than 32 feet. Commissioner Sonnet asked if the Motel 6 portion of the pylon sign is enlarged versus what is currently present or is that the same size, just higher. Mr. Litchfield responded that all of the panel signs have been increased in size proportionate to the increase in height, which is standard procedure. Architect Kurtzman emphasized from the first two photographs in East Francisco Boulevard photo packet that 4 feet was lost and therefore 25 feet is fine because it is 21 feet now. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 Commissioner Colin is confused by the photographs provided because the streetlamps appear parallel with the Motel 6 sign and the wall in front of the subject property seems more like 3 or 4 feet. Mr. Litchfield contacted Ghilotti and Caltrans on numerous occasions during construction to make sure they were not going to build a taller wall and he was continually assured that a taller wall was not going to be constructed. As seen, it was poured within 48 hours prohibiting him to go to court and stop construction. Commissioner Kirchmann noticed that the staff report mentioned two separate pylon signs and asked if that would be acceptable. Mr. Litchfield believed that would work and was unaware that staff made that recommendation. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff to explain the regulatory magic between 21 feet and 25 feet. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the Sign Ordinance as written allows freestanding signs to be 21 feet in height or not taller than the highest point of the roof of the building that exists on that site. Also, there is a height bonus built into the Sign Ordinance that allows the height of any freestanding sign to be increased by 1 -foot for every 5 -foot setback from the street up to a maximum of 25 feet, but not taller than the size or height of the structure on the property. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff what flexibility does the City have under the General Plan, Sign Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance to exceed that 21 or 25 -foot height. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the Sign Program is allowed to give some flexibility to properties that have some characteristic such as multiuse, multi -tenant, auto dealerships, cinemas and gasoline stations, so this qualifies under a multi -tenant property with a variety of uses. The Sign Program grants flexibility in the number, size, location and design, but it does not talk about sign height. This is the first time where the City had an application increase that exceeds the sign standards for height in the ordinance. Most signs throughout the community are freestanding signs at 21 feet in height. The Home Depot Shoreline Center sign is 25 feet, which was allowed by a bonus provision. In this particulate case the language reads, "Sign programs shall be used to achieve aesthetic compatibility between the signs within a project and may allow some flexibility in number, size and placement of signs. " The height would not qualify under the sign program, so an exception request is also being processed concurrently where an exception would be needed to show there is some unique circumstance with this property that warrants the deviation for the sign standards. In this case, they are asking for an increase in the sign height up to 32 feet. Commissioner Kirchmann clarified with staff that the exception provisions do not include any absolute maximum just the 20% threshold determines where it is a minor exception process or a major exception process. Principal Planner Boloyan stated just level of review. Commissioner Kirchmann clarified with staff that there is no guidance at all of what the maximum height would be. Principal Planner Boloyan stated there is none. Commissioner Kirchmann discussed the Best Buy location and asked staff within the City's regulations is that regarded as a wall sign or freestanding sign. Planner Stafford SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 8 W reviewed the staff report, minutes and resolution, and this was approved as wall signs or building signs, not pylon or freestanding signs. The sign closest to the rooftop parking, the actual building includes the outline of that wall. The building does not begin on the inside of that ramp, so it has always been considered to be the exterior wall. These are wall signs or building signs and were never reviewed, recommended for approval or approved as anything other than wall signs. They did request a pylon sign and they were discouraged by staff. Commissioner Colin discussed the major exceptions in the staff report and asked staff if all three must be found in order to grant the exception or just one in regard to page 6 of the staff report. Planner Stafford responded that all three findings must be made in order to approve. In order to deny, only one finding must be found. Commissioner Colin asked staff to discuss CEQA. Planner Stafford responded that, as the sign grows taller to the historic resource, there is a potential for impacting it negatively. Whether through poor quality of pylon sign or lack of consistency, staff believes as it gets closer there is potential for negative impact. Commissioner Kirchmann seemed the businesses on the west or southwesterly side of the freeway where the new off -ramp from Highway 101 to I-580 is located have a bigger impediment to sight than imposed in this case. He then asked staff if any other approvals have been given other than 21 feet. Planner Stafford responded that none have been approved. Vice Chair Lang opened the public hearing on this item, and seeing no one wishing to speak, the Vice Chair closed the public potion and brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion and action. Vice Chair Lang attended the DRB meeting and they agreed there had been some impact in visibility and the sign should be increased. Their first step was to remove the proposed hiiko sign panel from the pylon sign and just use the existing wall sign on the building because it was of a much higher quality than the proposed sign and which made the proposed pylon sign smaller by raising it just enough to place it over the edge of the freeway. Different numbers were discussed, but at the end the DRB developed a consensus around the 25 -foot height. All Board members were dissatisfied with the design of the sign. They were open to a sign at 25 feet in height, but it was not going to be this design. They desired a higher quality and better look. In regard to the historic sign, several Board members raised the issue of the new proposed sign really interfering with the historic sign. Commissioner Sonnet understands the dynamics and a financial need for the applicant wanting a conclusion quickly. It is very troubling to see an application denied and disapproved by DRB before the Commission. This is a gateway to the City of San Rafael and DRB did not approve of the design. For the matter to be unresolved is very troublesome. The applicant is faced with a situation where they apparently lost store frontage due to the freeway construction, which will not come back from the sign. He SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 9 10 desired a compromise or a work session, but if the desire is to get a quick denial for the applicant to move forward, he could do so. Vice Chair Lang noted that DRB recommended a continuance to modify the proposal and the applicant chose to come directly to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirchmann did not favor the existing sign program. He is not sure that loss of sales is necessarily technically relevant whether the sign program meets the requirements of the City. Motel 6 has retained visibility and it is a tenant that allegedly lost the most revenue. His concerns come back to the design of the program, the way the signs interact with one another and structures, and how they relate to the requirements of the ordinance. In terms of constructive suggestions, the staff report very expressly suggested considering two freestanding signs. The intent of the sign program is to design signs that provide enough flexibility to allow change in occupancy to obtain sign approval at staff level rather than returning to modify through the Commission. Commissioner Colin is troubled by the DRB's comments in terms of size and design. In terms of the exception findings, she could make two out of the three findings, but she desired the DRB's recommendation on the second finding in regard to good design and compatibility. The Best Buy building is a great design and looks good in her view. She wished the DRB had more input on this matter. In terms of having a conversation, the applicant stated 32 feet or nothing. She understands the economic times and that the raised wall obstructed visibility. She wanted the businesses to succeed and is willing to consider a higher sign, but 32 feet seems arbitrary to 25 feet. In regard to precedent setting, she reviews each project separately. Vice Chair Lang noted that, at the DRB meeting, several sign programs were discussed and she is sympathetic to the business owners during this tough economic time. The DRB's position was that if they set aside design standards now, this would ultimately harm all businesses and residents of the community. They must stick with the standards and allow some flexibility. They have design standards for a reason. She understands the practical limitations of the freeway and 25 feet seemed reasonable, but it must be the finest design. She further noted that the applicant requested that the Commission either approve or deny the application. Vice Chair Lang asked for a motion. Commissioner Colin moved and Commissioner Sonnet seconded, to deny the project without prejudice. Commissioner Kirchmann agreed with Commissioner Colin about the inability to make the finding for the second bullet point in regard to the exception. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Commissioners: Colin, Sonnet, Vice Chair Lang, Kirchmann NOES: Commissioners: None SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 10 11 ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners Chair Pick, Paul DIRECTOR'S REPORT Principal Planner Boloyan reported that two sessions were completed in regard to the Planning Academy with 40 persons in attendance. They covered general city infrastructure, city government topics and then housing and growth. Also, Commissioner Mills has submitted her resignation to the Planning Commission, so staff will be holding a recruitment shortly to be considered by City Council. In terms of project updates, Northgate One has submitted for their formal applications for design improvements at the property that included a fagade renovation and new sign program package. It was conceptually reviewed by the DRB a few months ago and they will review their formal application at their March 3�d meeting. They are requesting a parking modification to create portions of the promenade, so it will come to the Planning Commission. Also, Highlands of Marin was appealed and City Council will consider at their March 2ad meeting. Staff received a conceptual design review application for the Elks Club property for 52 condo units. Principal Planner Boloyan announced that the State passed new water efficiency and conservation requirements. Itis required to be implemented in January of next year. After review, it is fairly extensive with several monitoring requirements and plan preparation requirements. Staff has been working with the countywide group to see how others will address it. MMWD will take the lead and bulk of the workload for the conservation parts and the City will implement those ordinances and support MMWD. There will be some zoning ordinance amendments that must be adopted to incorporate those provisions for water efficiency. Staff further noted that the Airport EIR would come before the Commission in spring. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March l Oth, but no items are on that agenda, so that meeting will likely be cancelled. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Sonnet noted that Safeway on B Street has been repainted with the original colors, so he assumed they dropped their effort to paint the building a different color. Principal Planner Boloyan responded that the DRB expressed their strong liking for the unique color palette and Safeway wanted the Mediterranean style. Staff believed they dropped their proposal, but agreed to confirm. Commissioner Colin asked staff what would happen to the site next to Cold Stone. Principal Planner Boloyan explained that the corner tenant has not done well and there has never been had a solid tenant since the building was constructed. SRPC MINUTES (Regular) 2/24/09 11 ATTACHMENT 5 Planning Commission Staff Report February 24, 2009 With Selected Attachments CITYOF ����f��ll�rr Meeting Date: February 24, 2009 ,i f � Agenda Item: Community Development Department — Planning Division Case Numbers: SR08-070/ED08-110/EX09- P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 002 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 Project Planner: Steve Stafford (415) 458-5048 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: 721-737 Francisco Boulevard East ("Litchfield's") - Requests for: 1) an amendment to an existing Sign Program to allow an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an Exception to increase the height of a existing freestanding pylon sign, from 21' to 32' where a maximum of 25' is allowed; and 3) an amendment of an existing Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow new building colors for an existing motel / bulk commercial retail complex with highway frontage; APN: 014-204-11; General Commercial (GC) District; Perry Litchfield, owner; Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Co., applicant; File Nos.: SR08-070; EX09-002 & ED08-110 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In mid-November 2008, the property owner approached Staff to discuss increasing the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign on the site, from 21' to 30', in order to regain visibility lost during recent Caltrans improvements to U.S. Highway 101. Staff responded to being sensitive to, and supportive of, recapturing lost freeway sign visibility on the site. Staff gave direction to the property owner that the existing Sign Program on the site would require amendment and recommended that any proposal to increase the height of the freestanding pylon sign be limited to only that which is necessary to recapture the lost visibility (Exhibit 3). However, when the project was formally submitted to the City, it proposed to increase the total signage on the site from 324 square feet to 457.6 square feet and to increase the height of the existing freestanding pylon sign on the site from 21' to 32' above finished grade. The City's Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the project on February 3, 2009 and continued the item to a date uncertain after unanimously recommending that the proposal to amended the Sign Program was excessive and unnecessary (Exhibit 7). The DRB found the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign to be a "gateway sign", visually significant to the southern entrance to the City, and recommended that the design of the proposed freestanding pylon sign should integrate better with this historic sign by reducing the height and being better designed overall. The DRB expressed its support for an increase in the height of the freestanding pylon sign only as much as to regain lost highway visibility, which they determined to be approximately four feet (resulting in a maximum 25' -tall sign). Instead of returning to the DRB with revisions to the project, the property owner requested that the project be presented, as proposed, to the Planning Commission at the earliest opportunity. Since the applicant has chosen not to revise the project, as recommended by the DRB, Staff recommends denial of the project as presented to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the Sign Program Amendment, Exception, and Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment applications without prejudice, allowing the applicant to submit revisions to the project as requested by the DRB. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 2 PROPERTY FAGTS Address/Location: 721-737 Francisco Blvd. E. Parcel Number(s): 014-204-11 Pro ertV Size: 193,275 sq. ft. 2.14 acres Nei hborhood: East San Rafael Site Characteristics General Plan Desi nation I Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Project Site: General Commercial (GC) GC Bulk Retail / Motel North: Light Industrial / Office Core Commercial Industrial Multifamily Apartments / Motor Vehicle Service / Warehouse Storage South: NA NA U.S. Highway 101 / Interstate 580 East: GC GC Bulk Retail Furniture West: GC GC Bulk Retail(Flooring) Site Description/Setting: The subject site is located along the Francisco Boulevard East frontage road where westbound Interstate Highway 580 merges with northbound U.S. Highway 101 (Exhibit 1). It is located in the East San Rafael section of the City with Hoag Street located to the west, Medway Road to the east, Front Street to the north and Francisco Boulevard East to the south. The site is a flat parcel, 92,275 -square feet in area (2.14 acres) and is developed with a complex of five separate buildings. Two buildings are single -story structures located along Francisco Boulevard and are occupied by commercial/bulk retail uses. The remaining three buildings are two-story structures located to the rear of the site, backing up to Front Street, and are occupied by a motel and a county child care center uses. Architecturally, the two single -story buildings along Francisco Boulevard East reflect distinct design styling. One building is articulated with a porte-cochere feature, "truss & soffit" roof forms, stucco exterior and decorative fascia pattern. The other is simple concrete block wall with parapet construction. The three, two-story, rear buildings at the rear of the site are common in design details, including wrap- around U -shape building design, uncovered courtyard parking, and exposed exterior hallways/walkways. The most distinctive visual element on the site is the 144 square foot, "Litchfield's" roof sign which faces Francisco Boulevard East and was designated a national landmark in 1998. Signs within the immediate vicinity of the site, along Francisco Boulevard East are predominantly individual channel lettering, based on the proximity of the motor vehicle dealers located west of the site and their high-quality Sign Programs. However, the commercial retail area east of the site contains an assortment of existing raised sign cabinet or light boxes. BACKGROUND;' Prior Uses: The subject site has a long development history. It is the former site of the "Bermuda Palms" Motel & Nightclub. In 1999, the nightclub portion of the site was converted into two commercial/bulk retail tenant spaces. That same year, Days Inn became the on-site motel tenant until 2006 when Motel 6 became the current motel operator. Since 2002, a large portion of one of the two-story rear structures has been leased to Community Action Marin for use as a Marin Head Start child care center location. Prior Approvals: Among various past permit approvals on the site, those specifically relevant to the proposed project include: REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 3 • On August 25, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Master Sign Program for the site (SR98-021), subject to amendment if the City Council subsequently granted historic landmark to the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign and a changeable copy marquee sign; • On September 21, 1998, the City Council granted historic landmark status to the "Litchfield's" roof sign (Resolution No. 10314) and, on October 19, 1998, the Council denied the changeable copy marquee sign (Resolution No. 10328); • On November 24, 1998, the Planning Commission approved modifications to the Master Sign Program to include the "Litchfield's" roof sign; • On May 25, 1999, the Planning Commission approved further amendment to the Master Sign Program (SR99-17) to accommodate wall signs on pediment entrances to the newly created commercial/bulk retail tenant spaces along Francisco Boulevard East. The amended Master Sign Program approved black sign panels with white lettering to match the background sign color of the motel operator (Days Inn); • On April 12, 2006, Planning Staff approved a minor modification of the Master Sign Program to change the background sign panel color from black to teal (blue green) to match the existing trim color on the building. Staff's approval also had the effect of removing an existing 2' x 10' internally -illuminated cabinet sign ("Brothers Furniture") located at 721 Francisco Boulevard East from the approved Master Sign Program ; and • On June 26, 2007, the Planning Commission approved amendment of the Master Sign Program (SR06-095) and an Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED07-033) for new sign and building colors and for minor additional directional signage. Current Master Sign Program: The current Master Sign Program is composed of 324 square -feet of approved total signage for the site: • Roof Sign — Historic "Litchfield's" internally -illuminated roof sign — 144 square -feet; • Freestanding Monument Sign — Motel 6" internally -illuminated monument sign — with a 4' pedestal base and a maximum height of 8' above finished grade — located at the entrance to the porte-cochere feature — 36.1 square -feet; • Freestanding Pylon Sign — "Motel 6/Zebra Furniture/Mattress Discounters' internally -illuminated freestanding pylon sign — 21' in height — located in front of tenant "Zebra Furniture" at 727 Francisco Boulevard — 87.1 square -feet total (a 36.1 square foot "Motel 6" sign above two bulk retail tenant signs 25.5 square -feet each); and • Wall Signs — Two internally illuminated triangular wall signs — located within the pediment entrance features for bulk retail tenants "Zebra Furniture' at 727 Francisco Boulevard and "Mattress Discounters" at 733 Francisco Boulevard — 50 square -feet total (25 square -feet each). • Directional Sign — One internally -illuminated freestanding directional sign — 3.5' in height and 6.8 square feet — located along the north elevation of the north entry drive, between 721 and 727 Francisco Boulevard East, and setback from the front property boundary line equal to that of the existing freestanding pylon sign or more. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Signage: The project proposes modification of the current Master Sign Program, essentially, to recapture visibility lost as a result of the on-going Caltrans improvements to State Highway 101 by increasing the height of the existing freestanding pylon sign. The project also proposes to add another tenant panel to the REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 4 freestanding pylon sign and increase the size of each tenant panel sign. Lastly, the project proposes to reinstate signage located at 721 Francisco Boulevard East ("hiiko modern furniture"), the north building, back into the Master Sign Program. The applicant has submitted a color "photosims" package, a copy of which is attached to this report. Based on the details provided in this photosim package, the following amendments to the existing Sign Program are being proposed: Replace the "Motel 6/Zebra Furniture/Mattress Discounters" internally -illuminated freestanding pylon sign with a new freestanding pylon sign that includes: o Increasing the existing height from 21' to 32'; o Enlarging the tenant sign panels as follows: ➢ "Motel 6" increasing from 36.1 square -feet (4'4" x 84") to 50 square -feet (5' x 10') in sign area; ➢ "Zebra Furniture" and "Mattress Discounters" increasing from 25.5 square -feet (3' x 84") to 35.8 square -feet (3'9" x 10') in sign area each; o Adding a fourth tenant sign panel to the new pylon sign for "hiiko modern furniture", Which will match the "Zebra Furniture" and "Mattress Discounters' sign panels in sign area (35.8 square feet) and sign dimensions (3'9" x 10'); Note: The colors of the existing "Motel 6" panel sign would remain unchanged (i.e., red "6" with white edging and lettering and dark blue background). The proposed colors of the three smaller tenant panels would change from white lettering over teal background to red lettering over off- white background. The materials and colors of new pylon sign itself would not change from its existing stucco finish and dual color palette (ICI "Legend Tan" for the lower 8.5' feet from the base and ICI "French White" for the remaining 235). The color of the light cabinets would match the sign panel background. • Replace the "Zebra Furniture" and "Mattress Discounters' internally -illuminated triangular wall signs with sign facings reflecting the new proposed colors of the retail tenants (red lettering over off-white background — 50 square -feet total (25 square -feet each) in sign area — no change other than sign colors; • Add a third internally -illuminated triangular wall sign located with the pediment facade of the porte-cochere entrance for "Motel 6 — 30 square feet (3' x 10') — reflecting the "Motel 6" corporate colors to match those on the freestanding monument and pylon sign. • Replace the existing halo -lit, individual channel letters, wall sign for "hiiko modern furniture' located at 721 Francisco Boulevard East with a 33.3 square foot (3'4" x 10'), internally -illuminated cabinet sign and add it back into the Master Sign Program. The sign colors are proposed to match those of the other commercial/bulk retail tenants — red lettering over off-white background; and • Maintain the existing internally -illuminated directional sign — 6.8 square -feet (no change). (discuss sign panel color, if necessary. Site inspection necessary to confirm that directional sign is existing on the site) submitted by the applicant, it is believed that the background color of the new directional signs would match that which is proposed for all of the retail tenant sign panels — a medium shade of green or "Kelly Green" behind white lettering. The project proposes no change to, but maintains, the following existing signs within the Amended Master Sign Program: • The historic "Litchfield's" internally -illuminated roof sign — 144 square -feet; and • The "Motel 6" internally -illuminated monument sign — 36.1 square -feet. Thus, the project proposes to increase the total signage — both in number and overall sign area — on the site; the number of signs on the site is proposed to increase from seven to ten and the total combined sign area on the site is proposed to increase from 324 square feet to 457.6 square feet. The project also proposes to increase the height of the existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32'. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 5 Building Exterior: The project also proposes to amend the existing Environmental and Design Review Permit to legalize the recent change in building trim color on the south building, located at 727/733/737 Francisco Boulevard East. The trim color for the south building is now ICI "Legend Tan" or a light shade of tan color where ICI "Peppergrass Green" or a darker, "forest green" shade of color was previously approved. The project does not propose to change the building color from its existing dual color palette (ICI "Legend Tan" and ICI "French White") which also matches the colors of the proposed freestanding pylon sign. The project also does not propose to change the dual color palette on the motel rooms, which is a light or sea foam green tone trimmed in a darker, forest green tone (ICI "Peppergrass Green"). The trim color on the north building, located at 721 Francisco Boulevard East, is proposed to change from its current brighter shade of olive green color with white trim to match the dual color palette of the south building, or a light shade of tan color base (ICI "Legend Tan") with an off-white trim color (ICI "French White'). The project proposes no additional modification to the exterior finish of the north building. ANALYSIS San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency: The project requires consistency with all applicable policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. Staff has provided an overview of the proposed project's consistency with the General Plan in a table which is attached to this report (Exhibit 5). Staff Analysis: As an existing business that also includes a motel use, Staff believes that the property owner should be encouraged and supported to upgrade the site; however, any redevelopment on the site needs to be consistent with good design principles and must be respectful with the historic "Litchfield's" roof sign. Staff finds that the proposed increased height of the freestanding pylon sign does not respect the historic roof sign on the site and detracts the site as contributing to the southern gateway to the City as seen from U.S. Highway 101. Staff believes that the amount of proposed signage on the site could be considered excessive and unnecessary. Further discussion is provided in the Zoning Consistency section below. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project requires consistency with all applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance (including applicable findings). Staff has provided an overview of the proposed project's consistency with the Zoning Ordinance in a table which is attached to this report (Exhibit 6). Sign Program Pursuant to Section 14.19.046 (Sign Programs) of the City's Sign Ordinance, the findings required for the approval of a new Sign Program or an amendment to an existing Sign Program, include: • All signs shall contain one of more common design elements such as placement, color, materials, illumination, sign type, sign shape, letter size and letter type; • All signs shall be in harmony and scale with the colors, materials, architecture, and other design features of the building and property, and shall be consistent with the General Design Standards as specified in Section 14.19.054; and • The amount and placement of all signage is in scale with the site as well as the immediately surrounding area. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 6 Staff finds the proposed signage possesses some common design elements in regards to sign colors (red lettering over off-white background; "Motel 6" signage excepted which is red "6" with white edging and lettering and dark blue background ) and illumination (internally illuminated), though lacks adequate common design elements in terms of sign type (projecting cabinet sign proposed for "hiiko modern furniture" while existing wall signs for "Zebra Furniture" and "Mattress Discounters' are recessed or flush - mounted light boxes) and placement (the placement of the proposed, 32' -high, freestanding pylon sign conflicts with the existing 36' -high "Litchfield's" roof sign, a known historic resource listed as a State landmark, and the placement of the proposed triangular or pediment "Motel 6" wall sign, located at the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use, is redundant given its close proximity to the existing "Motel 6" freestanding monument sign). Staff however also finds the design of the proposed signage is out of scale with the design of the building and improvements on site and in the vicinity. With the exception of the Shoreline Center, all of the approved freestanding signs in San Rafael, including those in the vicinity of the site along Francisco Boulevard East and within approved Sign Programs, are a maximum of 21' above grade (The Shoreline Center is approved for a 25' -high, freestanding pylon sign). Both buildings along the frontage of the site, adjacent to the existing freestanding pylon sign, are a maximum of 21' in height, the same as the existing sign. Staff finds that, while the existing historic "Litchfield's" roof sign and mature palm trees on the site, which are both approximately 36' in height above finished grade, may help to provide a higher visual scale, the project's proposed 32' -high freestanding pylon sign is both unprecedented and potentially precedent -setting. Staff additionally finds the design of the proposed 32' -high freestanding pylon sign is not compatible with, or complementary to, the design of the existing 36' -high "Litchfield's" roof sign, a known or historic cultural resource. Staff finds the closer the proposed freestanding pylon sign is allowed to be placed in relation to the protected "Litchfield's" roof sign, the more likely it will compete with or negatively impact the historic value of the "Litchfield's" roof sign, possibly requiring greater study for potential impacts to a protected historical resource. Staff finds the amount and placement of the proposed sign is out of scale with the building and improvements on the site and within the vicinity. The site has 350 linear feet of building frontage along Francisco Boulevard East. For comparisons, the City's sign standards would limit the sign area on the site to 350 square feet total or one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage. The current Sign Program approves 324 square feet of sign area and the project proposes an additional 133.6 square feet of sign area for a total of 457.6 square feet of total sign area for the site. Staff additionally finds the proposed new triangular "Motel 6" wall sign located along the pediment facade of the porte-cochere entrance to the motel use on the site is redundant given its close proximity to the existing "Motel 6" freestanding monument sign. Exception Pursuant to Section 14.19.046 (A), the purpose of Sign Programs is to achieve aesthetic compatibility between signs on a site or with a project while allowing some flexibility in the number, size, type and placement of signs. Pursuant to Section 14.19.045 (B) (Exceptions, major and minor) of the Sign Ordinance, projects requesting deviation from the sign standards for sign height by more than twenty percent (20%) require the granting of a "major" Exception by the Planning Commission. Findings required for the granting of an Exception include : • The Exception is necessary to overcome special or unusual site conditions such as exceptional building setback and lack of or limited visibility due to orientation, shape or width of the property and building improvements. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 7 • The Exception is appropriate in that it would allow signage in proper scale with the building and site improvements, would be compatible with other signs in the vicinity, and would promote a good design solution. The Exception would permit an improvement that would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on- or off-site. The project proposes to deviate from the sign standards for sign height by more than 20% and, therefore, requires an Exception in addition to amending the Sign Program. The height of the freestanding pylon sign is proposed to increase from 21 feet to 32 feet above finish grade, where a maximum height of 21' is allowed under the sign standards. Additionally, pursuant to Section 14.19.053 (L) (3) of the Sign Ordinance, freestanding signs are not allowed to exceed the height of adjacent buildings where the signs are located. The existing height of the two single -story buildings along the Francisco Boulevard frontage is 21' above finished grade.). Staff is understanding of the applicant's concerns with the lost visibility and would be supportive of a solution that would recapture the lost visibility while meeting the required findings to grant the amendment and Exception. Staff finds recent Caltrans improvements to U.S. Highway 101 have indeed created a loss of freeway visibility to the freestanding pylon sign. However, Staff does not find that the application submittals provide neither justification nor evidence that an 11' increase to the freestanding pylon sign is necessary to recapture the lost visibility. Rather, it appears that the 11' increase has been designed to not only recapture lost visibility, but also increase and create new visibility. Both the DRB and Staff believe that an increase to recapture lost visibility is warranted and such an increase is approximately four feet. Staff also finds the proposed 32' tall freestanding pylon sign is out of scale with buildings and improvements on the site and with other similar freeway -oriented freestanding signs in the vicinity. While the "Litchfield's" roof sign is approximately 36' above finish grade which, together with the mature palm trees on the site that are of a similar height, helps to create some "relationship" with the proposed new freestanding pylon sign height of 32', the bulk retail buildings along the frontage are both single -story with a maximum height of 21'above finish grade. As a matter of policy, the City has historically limited the maximum height of freestanding signs to that of the nearest building on the site. All other freeway - oriented freestanding signs with the City are a maximum height of 21' above finish grade, with the exception of the 25' -tall Shoreline Center freestanding sign. Staff finds a better design solution for the project may include recognizing the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign as the "gateway sign" that it is and either: • Maintaining the existing freestanding pylon sign height of 21' and limit signage to the "Litchfield's" center and the motel branding only; or • Maintaining the existing freestanding pylon sign height of 21' and limit signage to the commercial bulk retail tenants and upgrade these signs to a high-quality design, while increasing the existing monument sign, from 6' to 21' to match the design of the other pylon sign and limit signage to "Motel 6" only. The property owner, however, has indicated in the record that he is not willing to discuss design solutions unless they include increasing the height of the freestanding pylon sign to 32'. Due to the proposed 32' -high freestanding pylon sign lacking precedence, while being potentially precedent -setting, the granting of a major Exception for sign height is required. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION -Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 8 Environmental and Design Review Permit Pursuant to Section 14.25.040 (C) (6) (Environmental and Design Review Permits, Review criteria) of the Zoning Ordinance, exterior repainting and refinishing on a development which differs for that previously approved through an Environmental and Design Review Permit requires an amended Environmental and Design Review Permit approval. The color palette for the south building on the site was previously approved (ED07-033) and included a dark "forest green" or ICI "Peppergrass Green" trim color, though it has recently been repainted to the proposed new light tan or ICI "Legend Tan" trim color. The north building on the site is proposed to be repainted to match the dual color palette of the south building and the proposed new freestanding pylon sign (i.e., a light shade of tan color base or ICI "Legend Tan" with an off-white trim color or ICI "French White"). Its current exterior colors have not been reviewed or approved under any previous Environmental and Design Review Permit. Staff finds the proposed new tan trim color is a neutral shade color which would complement the off- white base building color successfully. A comprehensive color board has been submitted by the applicant and will be presented to the Commission during the hearing. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION The DRB reviewed the project submittals at their last held meeting on February 3, 2009 (Commissioner Lang, Liaison). At that time, the DRB unanimously found that the total site signage presented was excessive and unnecessary. Overall, the DRB found the existing "Litchfield's" roof sign to be a "gateway sign", visually significant to the southern entrance to the City, and the design of the proposed freestanding pylon sign should integrate well with the historic sign. The DRB concurred with Staff that they could support increasing the height of the freestanding pylon sign only as much as to regain lost highway visibility, which they determined to be approximately four feet or up to a maximum of 25'. The DRB also found that design of freestanding pylon sign was not "high-quality" and recommended the applicant consider halo -lit, individual letters. Additionally, the DRB also provided the following comments: It is not necessary to add another tenant panel for "hiiko modern furniture' to the freestanding pylon sign; in that, the existing "hiiko" wall sign on the north building has adequate highway visibility; Furthermore, the existing "hiiko modern furniture" wall sign is "high-quality" and should be retained and not replaced with a projecting "cabinet or light box" sign The proposed "Motel 6" pediment wall sign at the front of the porte-cochere is redundant and unnecessary; The DRB continued their review of the applications, to a date uncertain, to allow the applicant to revise the project based on the recommendations provided. Instead, at the request of the property owner, the project is being presented to the Planning Commission "as is", without modification or revision and against the direction of the DRB. Since the applicant has chosen not to revise the project, as recommended by the DRB, Staff has no choice but to recommend denial the project as presented. A copy of the DRB's unapproved meeting minutes are attached to this report (Exhibit 7). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15270(a) (Projects Which are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts projects that are rejected, disapproved or denied by a public agency. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 9 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING / CORRESPONDENCE Notice of hearing for the project was conducted in accordance with noticing requirements contained in Chapter 29 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius of the subject site, the Canal Area Property and Business Owner's Association, and all other interested parties, 15 calendar days prior to the date of all meetings, including this hearing. To date, no comments have been received as a result of this noticing. CONCLUSION Staff understands the impact of the recent highway construction to the visibility of the freeway -oriented signage on this site. Given this impact, Staff has attempted to work with the applicant to find a design solution that will recapture that which has been lost, as well as meet the City's design policies and required findings for granting of an Exception and Sign Program Amendment. Unfortunately, the project proposes not only to raise the freestanding sign to recapture the lost visibility, but to further increase the height of the sign to provide additional visibility beyond that which has been lost. Both Staff and the DRB recommend that the findings to grant an Exception and Sign Program Amendment cannot be made for the current project given that the proposed signage is: The proposed increase in sign height is out of scale with the other freestanding pylon signs in both the vicinity and for the entire City; The proposed increase in sign height is not warranted to since the loss of visibility to the freestanding pylon sign is approximately 4' and not 11'; The proposed increase in sign height may present a potential significant impact to a historical resource which could require further evaluation under CEQA; Staff believes there are design solutions to the loss of freeway visibility of the freestanding pylon sign such as maintaining the existing pylon sign to 21' in height, limiting its use to tenant signs only, and upgrading these signs to a high-quality design while increasing the existing monument sign to another 21' pylon sign for exclusive use by "Motel 6" signage. The property owner, however, has indicated in the record that he is not willing to discuss design solutions unless they include increasing the height of the freestanding pylon sign to 32'. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the project without prejudice. Denying without prejudice would allow the applicant to resubmit an application for a revised project within one year. Otherwise, if the project is denied, an application for a revised project could not be submitted for one year. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Deny the project without prejudice (Staff's recommendation); 2. Approve the project applications as presented and direct Staff to return with a revised resolution and findings; 3. Approve the project applications with certain modifications, changes or additional conditions of approval and direct Staff to return with a revised resolution and findings;. 4. Continue the project applications to allow the applicant to address any of the Commission's, comments or concerns; REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: SR08-070, ED08-110 & EX09-002 Page 10 5. Refer the project back to the DRB for further review and recommendations; or 6. Deny the project, with prejudice. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity/Location Map 3. Letter to Property Owner, dated November 14, 2008 4. Property Owner's Letter Packet, dated January 28, 2009 5. General Plan Consistency Table 6. Zoning Ordinance Consistency Table 7. Design Review Board (DRB) Minutes, dated February 3, 2009 ratnsc..nrxs...r ..... 721— 737 Francisco Boulevard East "Litchfield's" ilw m niwwug "Zebra Furniture" EXHIBIT 1 November 14, 2008 Perry Litchfield 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 875 San Rafael, CA 94901 Mayor Albert J. Boro Council Members Greg Brockbank Damon Connolly Barbara Meller Cyr N. Miller First Class U.S. Mail and Email Re: Post meeting comments on proposed increase in height of existing freestanding pylon sign located at 727-737 Francisco Blvd. East; APN: 014-204-11 Dear Perry: After meeting with you recently at the Planning Counter and discussing the possibility of amending the existing Sign Program to allow for an increase in height of the existing freestanding pylon sign,I wish to make several follow-up comments and recommendations in order to help guide you prior to application submittal. First, let me say that the City is sensitive to the loss of visibility of the pylon sign due to the on-going freeway improvements project by Caltrans; however, it appears that the proposed increase in sign height, from 21 feet to 30 feet above finished grade, is as much the result of wanting to add more signage as it is recapturing lost freeway visibility. Please note that, with the exception of the Shoreline Center located at the corner of Francisco Boulevard East and Shoreline Parkway,. all of the approved freestanding signs in San Rafael, are a maximum of 21' above grade (The Shoreline Center is approved for a 25' -high, freestanding pylon sign). This is consistent within the maximum freestanding sign height allowable under the San Rafael Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14.19 of'the San Rafael Municipal Code). As you know, a Sign Program (SR06-095) currently exists on your site. This Sign Program provides an alternative to the City's sign standards and is intended to address the unique multiple uses on the site by allowing some flexibility in signage. Any proposal to increase the height of the freestanding pylon sign or to increase the amount of signage on the site requires amendment of the Sign Program. The findings required for approval of an Amended Sign Program include whether the size and placement of signage is in scale with the buildings and improvements on the site and within the immediate surrounding vicinity. As stated previously, all freestanding pylon signs in the vicinity of the site do not exceed 21' above grade. In order to be consistent with the required findings for an Amended Sign Program; I strongly recommend that you limit any proposal to increase the height of the freestanding pylon sign on your site to that which will re-establish prior freeway visibility lost by Caltrans construction. To find the additional sign height appropriate to maintain previous freeway visibility, your application will need to include photo montages from four different vantage points along both northbound and southbound U.S. Highway 101 to show the existing conditions as well as the proposed conditions with your revised signage proposal. Any proposal for additional sign height beyond that which is necessary to re -gain lost visibility will likely be difficult for staff to support due to its potential precedent -setting nature. Community Development Department 1400 Fifth Avenue, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 EXHIBIT 3 Phone: (415) 485-3085 • Facsimile:(415) 485-3184 To: Perry Litchfield Re: Freestanding Pylon Sign Date: November 14, 2008 Page 2 If you continue to desire additional signage on the freestanding pylon sign in addition to recapturing lost freeway visibility, I recommend that application to amend the existing Sign Program focus on a more efficient use of the approved 21' freestanding sign height through a comprehensive redesign that includes the additional signage in reduced dimensions. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (415) 458-5048 or Associate Planner C. Bob Brown Community Development Director Paul Jensen Planning Manager Raffi Boloyan Principal Planner Community Development Department 1400 Fifth Avenue, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Phone: (415) 485-3085 • Facsimile:(415) 485-3184 Ln\8 OFFICES OF MARTIN J. MALKIN 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 875 San Rafael, California 94901 Tel: (415) 459-2000 Fax: (415)459-3668 e-mail: mjmlaw@earthlink.net January 28, 2009 Stephen Stafford, Planner City of San Rafael San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Sign Application, Project #08-068, Case File #SR08-070 Dear Mr. Stafford: Hand Delivered The undersigned is the attorney for Perry Litchfield in connection with the above application to install a new double sided pylon sign and to install a new Motel 6 wall sign at the property known as 721-737 E. Francisco Blvd., San Rafael. This application was made necessary by the recent widening and reconfiguration of Highway 101 immediately adjacent to my client's premises. As part of that widening and reconfiguration, the slope of 101's roadbed next to my client's property was substantially increased and the wall separating the highway from E. Francisco Blvd. was also raised. As a result, the driving lanes on the freeway are now substantially lower than the eastern freeway wall, the visibility of my client's storefronts from the freeway driving lanes has been obliterated, and most of the existing signage showing the locations of the retail businesses and motel at 721-737 E. Francisco has been blocked from freeway view. When the freeway reconfiguration began to block the view of the stores and signs, business volume at the stores and the motel decreased. Without the freeway visibility that attracted these businesses to East Francisco, the result will continue to be reduced business in the retail establishments in my client's property, and reduced motel and sales tax revenues to San Rafael. Of course, my client's property value has been adversely affected. While the proposed project will only partially mitigate the lack of freeway visibility, the signage requested will, hopefully, improve the business climate impaired by the freeway project. I trust that staff will recommend to Design Review that the project be approved as submitted. Very truly yours, Martin J. Malkin RECEIVE® MJM/rlm cc: client SAN 2 9 2009 PLANmNG EXHIBIT 4 Kenneth Kurtzman, Architect KURTZMANI ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, WTERIOR DESIGN P.O. BOX 854 BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA 94920 Ph: 415-435-2535 Fax: 415-457-2022 The businesses along E. Francisco Blvd. that have been severely impacted by the recent Highway 101 freeway construction are Hiiko Modern Furniture in the building at 711 E. Francisco and the two businesses located in the adjacent building, Zebra Furniture at 727 E. Francisco and Mattress Discounters at 733 E. Francisco, which are both located in the same building that is also part of Motel 6. As can be seen from the sequential photos taken. through the windshield driving along Highway 101, because of the new increased height of the roadway embankment and the concrete barrier wall along the elevated curve of the freeway in front of the subject property, the two buildings have almost vanished from sight. The Hiiko store only has a few feet of its front wall visible above the barrier, and the larger building now only has its roofs showing above the barrier. Before the freeway construction, the buildings and their storefront windows were clearly visible from the freeway as shown in the first photo, and the full height of the pylon sign was also visible. Now, because of the freeway construction, only the top portion of the pylon sign is exposed above the concrete barrier wall, and the lowest signboard on the pylon is obscured. As seen in the second photo, and as experienced when driving on the freeway, signage that is just above the level of the freeway wall is not prominent at all and it is very easy to not even notice that it is there, particularly during the daytime when the Motel 6 sign is not illuminated. As you progress northwesterly down the freeway beyond the new elevated curve and the level of the roadway is lower, the other buildings and their storefronts along the freeway are still clearly visible. Even with eventual economy recovery the businesses adjacent to the new elevated curve will still be severely affected by lack of any visibility from the freeway. The only thing that can mitigate their current lack of visibility from the freeway is a pylon sign of adequate height and visibility that lets let the public know where their stores are located. The only way to provide adequate signage for the Hiiko store is to add it to the proposed pylon sign as shown in the exhibits. In addition to the proposed height of 32 feet for the new pylon sign, the lettering also needs to be increased beyond it's current size because it is too difficult to read the store signs as you are passing by along the freeway at relatively high speed, particularly as you are rounding a curve and there is merging traffic. We urge you to favorably consider this pylon sign proposal. It is what is required to provide adequate signage visibility for these three stores equal to the visibility of the signage that the other businesses enjoy along this stretch of freeway. January 1S, 2009 H x W c W i r O O O N y � ONA ME— _ _ ❑❑ O S b q " --- - o T 7 p W v C N p m l q v q w U od .� b y p U 3 q .bzi .'qon b "Con b P: o w g G bU ., W m b v m oon m •" €�.....:-:rob b Fo���.bbaA�p -x . :� on .2 O N b ,� ,n O T v •ti •° ❑ A m q q � 3 p A q , GTa � .ri v C ,� � b b .O N d q U v UTZ on �i O o U o G C N U N U 08 O 00 N N .y On o o� 4 0 0 bb o o > x b u b n�.'7 o�p.7 �,p 3. on �' �:Zw� q c W i r a pp .a OP. MENNEM b�'�SN�•p �p'o 4.x. 'meq N O W O O O m — ° 0 aai aro 0 „ N N.� ao 0 0 "_ �. ro'�N o •° _—__ .� ro 3 a ate.o NA.bap •aO o y b F. a0 d a 3 0 - ❑ bq ,-: y oan � a � 'b aroi a .� � •� a°�i � � �` " � ani O J. O rii T a b LL 00 N N N U w 0 v� -_— - "rn "in i..� '� �' b ^y •'� W � O ate' .u..0 p�1 O _ � a°i a a. ;� o 0 N o w pp __ - ��' �bq ti o .fir v�•ti ° m�.o a. ao'� o p3j ° 0 O� O O 0,104 m � � F 0 � 1 a � RAF � � 0 � � U _ _ N M .�.� ° .c7 � � � tC +�,• .� '� .°: ° 0 w � � U •� .C. '� pp pn to b g v� �a ❑ = ai s. q m.�CO, 0 - h o 0 .°a o w acs+ c] uR �O 0 <3 N '0 iC o f p❑�+p O U A '� 0 G ,o y pap ,° ° Y 0 v; > u5.�, Atr -0 p -72 ro , , p'fo v ro b g �j 5 o 2 U .> •� pp � .� 0 v pp � � .� pp ro � a p0 N 3 ° UU q0O U U m 'o iy > v o a ° a, � 7 . P4 -0 PI a y _ W 06 o" O.O bA q N 4 N y �O° y. aonK �aaao ° y w '.3 o o ao i° v 'Cro �0 w0+ O M O _ O - rogue o Q a ti H o x �O A° a W U O Y T o '15 N O ro ai 2 H r� cd q. N N 04 N __.._.w =ra ao vtr __ o o 'y0 o bb- -_ w° o5 a .o v 0 3 P. a O y ro v bA N R N> ro a oA'n camc++ 9 ro N '- y pp'd �. > y > Ow-uT'.:� 73 0 80,1 OU p N f0 -i .�`� .� U � y°y a y i3 O w H '� � > � 09 o N 3 W mro0na.ngnp�pN .04 1 04' >, ai O N ^' q __ate vqo o �°� opo�on•�°D,w O kn o w , 9b .s o °' m d. w m ro 0,oq�n --S p 0, 'm o LL Y o .q ono q o H �, p - .y a qo H °n q O - >. P. p 'X :d LL qU -0 0 °v v ,� W ' w °qn p �' on moi o 41 o 0 43 P., > 00 .G 0, ro U °' o LLro p O .� y ro p a) 0 on o ro m on a; X v; C s00. b o-oi m M °o 0 o w r50. .� ro O ,C "N-' ro aso ° b ".m W v 'd P. o h PT. on tU -0 o ,O m "qan q� v o - opt o �°° q�❑ ° aP4 P� .0 N °P4' b N w .0 m w B p ro m o p m on 3 q q b O .ti w o h o y� o o.q q p 4 00 o O O A N ,bo qaq O O o.0 P,'p pro O O �w R„p �1 �: q ?4 q p ,� O q N .� a• p H O P, v ' k p 'Sd °A k '� Vl N W .p •`O' A ai ,y ro14, 0 v b a oq A ti b W by O O A ici 0-0.+ 'vl ;� . ❑ a� o", w ° q " a3i . o 'Y U ' a 'S �iu > aroi ti a'i bon 0 3 ❑ :? v iv o q. H U M O y V ,�^ C ^O m WO O YO w �t7 'd N •Y O al N 0. U q rYii O GL •cl ❑ � O N Q,— O a a c°� baA'O 0 0 bn a '+� W 00 'D 0 'P� O I a O O M Q O Q. cd • O LL v0,o bo 0 0 0 0 q �o o �. q. K a •� o N o' ro o m c+ � � ,.X� }� U M � •d .ate+ p� " U P4 � ../. p O Vq � .� bn x 0 �� a� •� � Y o o m g G m O� „� v ro o q •ti 0V s. m' o X bn m o °' 0 y, V on m r� m a o 0 bn m ° o '. 0 m ^' � o q :� o t''.� �, o ao � 0 °� ;,'� � 90 �.o � � �� �•3 ro 3.� Aaoo vb� aw�i Cno �b �b � °' ov•� '� ami '� °' •� .� w ro � � �o aqi :� � `� v � � b m bo � F, A d :� :c '> A a Q �, 3 ro bn � ,� a ro ,>. N . o m ate; :9 .on.� � en 3 3 0 ,�❑❑, ❑a q' o 0 b .� q O N O s. .bb9 AU NO U 0A •� O i_d ro ai Oy �W ynyO O 0 0 bn •° NO^ h N bn N iy b9 W in 0. I0❑°G a '> 04 O o oP4 01 0 w > v 04 0o i v G 0n o. w%° oa° 0 m b�an'on ro�0 m � 2 H 3 0 ro 0 0 a ❑a Ica L' n w 0 '.d ou o q ai . '. ro ° o b o �p G ' 3 p as o° a °qb _ a �w ap M4 F to 0 gg a 3 °> 0 4� a a o R y d k ° ro - __ o b a o 0 ❑�❑ m Op o'- :J 0b .o a°i avro -00 o ° oo a o° .0 a� � 0- Y x v.ao by 12 0 ,0 o ay 3 A p o :d .� ti ro q o4'� O o J7 ° °' <tJ '❑d❑ v 'v, an .°q ro pano '00 W 'm a �° a d -0 �.°p a� GO a �„ o. O p b �� b 3 aro by N b H N p y w N .a p-0 pW� P O O O bA 3°ao�n a. 04 a o Raw o _ Q a aroi B ro o o qq >, oro a :, �, bn ±✓ >, - - --- aS o, 'jp, a 0 3 k q 0 m. p HEREM o Q+ LL C7 s p LL N ° 'y N 9 ,bn N bn G v .� ro aroi a m O O a ti° 5 0 7 0 s p a a� itl a o 2p v 0 0 0 a> o m ,� .' yN. 5 0 o b ,� N O _ o ro � a o a '�,w�kJ o• ad7 • • • o 23'�� _2� O = O W A. O p a ro G rob ro a A. 'O r m }O}rr ,y aa, Oro W:ti N o a a4 ° Vv o a b 3 0 :H o O N>0 p `msµ N bro O p 0 -0p a W .-. pp 0 N O p O O 0 o lam". O o' w b oro b7, o ° c?� o�so� H b H N-0 o CL V1 N j[s4S_ p c pp y bn O O A 0 F O O O - H J T rq N N �y N ro u 9b y R m O N q O m U 'o Ri O U N O Ri 00 ro Oa ro❑❑ w� 0 o. b W'� A ..d a 2 w v 3 r: o ;0 o� w o r b m ani o 'a°i o Co a00 00 o npi U CL 0 0 0 0 N A fibro b W❑❑ CLQ.° U N °O N ro p r3 N N ai p" � a CLW a"i T A N U .: O Ots 'b N N O v . aJ.y� rod; ro P, 9,0. 9 ro° o° O N m o Fi b ani , D o w Fp'S ° a x o a o a 0 o O O .'S a Q Y y .� O .-• .� m A i~ A A o .J5 N W aaq F F ,� .N F F 3 N / ¥ B 2 permits to renovate the exterior. They expect to be open for the grand opening of November 2009. Kohl's will reoccupy Mervyn. Trees will be replanted at 718 Fourth Street in regard to the bayside project. 200 Oak View went to Council on the 20th and was approved. The appeal was rejected, so the building as designed and constructed will be finished. 809 B Street has resurfaced in regard to two historic homes. Applicant will be proposing a mixed-use development on that site. Perry Litchfield, rebuilt 718 Fourth Street/Bayside Mann, appreciated that staff indicated that the new sidewalk they installed did not include new trees. He pointed out that it was not neglected. They submitted plans to the City and paid for construction of that new sidewalk to match downtown completely according to the plans. It was not neglect and if they were told to install trees that would have been done. B. Board Communications Alternate Garg asked staff the status of 1266 Second Street office project. Tambornini responded that they decided not to move forward with a complete remodel of that building, so it is a major tenant improvement. C. Minutes -None D. New Business (2) SR -8-70/ Request for Sign Program amendment to increase the sign height and ED08-110 area of a freestanding pylon sign (Litchfield's) 721-737 Francisco Boulevard E. (Litchfield's) (Steve Stafford) Stafford summarized the staff report and requested the Board's comments and recommendations on the design, scale, colors, dimensions, locations, illumination, sign type, sign shape, letter size, and letter type of the proposed Amended Sign Program. Specifically, staff requests the Board's review and comments on the following: • Whether the proposed increase in height of the freestanding pylon sign is appropriate to re-establish freeway visibility lost during recent improvements to State Highway 101/Interstate Highway 580. • Whether the proposed increase in sign height and total sign area is in scale with the site itself and with the surrounding neighborhood. • Whether the new cabinet sign proposed for the north building on the site, at 721 Francisco Boulevard East, would provide the common design elements with the other signage, on and in front of the south building, necessary for the Board to recommend approval. • Whether the proposed new sign colors complement the design and colors of the buildings on the site and are compatible with the character and design of signs in the immediate neighborhood. • Whether the revised building colors are appropriate. In addition, staff welcomes the Board's guidance on any additional design details that would further improve the project. DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 EXHIBIT 7 Huntsberry asked staff when did the motel status occupancy get changed to a childcare center and is that the same occupancy requirement. Stafford responded that around 10 years ago that change occurred. Staff issued a use permit and it was approved at staff level. Staff noted that it was done after both front retail buildings were improved. Alternate Garg asked staff if the pylon sign requires a deviation or is it within the allowable sign limits. Stafford responded that within the sign program amendment, the number and size of total signage on the property is allowed to be increased. It explicitly includes sign heights. As far as increase in sign area, it involves an additional side panel and the enlargement of the existing tenant panels on the pylon sign. It also involves two new signs, which is the triangular sign for Motel 6. Bringing in the hiiko modern furniture sign increases the amount of signage on the site. Tambommi requested that the applicant produce a photomontage demonstrating the exact loss of visibility, which is provided in the Board's packet. Chair Olmsted discussed illumination of signs D1, D2, D3 and D4 and asked staff what is proposed. Tambommi indicated that all signage is internally illuminated. Dl, D2 and D4 are all recessed light boxes, so internally illuminated and it appears rear -facing illumination. D3 is more difficult on a concrete block building and will be a projecting, internally illuminated box sign. Staff believed just the sign lettering is illuminated. The hiiko modern furniture letters are halo -lit on a concrete wall in a square box. Robert Rogers, Barber Sign Company, objective tonight is to re-establish the loss visibility of signage for the property. The storefronts are completely invisible from the freeway construction. He was commissioned to design a sign that would accomplish this and keep the sign in proper proportion to the facility and maintain color and theme of the building and the surrounding area. The height of the hiiko modern furniture portion of the sign is very critical to be maintained at the pylon sign. According to staff, in order for that business to come into conformance with the Master Sign Program in place, the individual letters must be removed and a cabinet sign must be installed. This is an item that should be further reviewed. They are present to resolve the major problem created by the loss of visibility and believe what is presented will achieve that goal. Huntsberry does not see any rational for changing what is a descent looking sign for hiiko. Also, the letters are much larger than what is proposed on the sign cabinet. Ken Kurtzman, architect, noted that the freeway bends through San Rafael and then continues north. He then talked about loss of visibility hat is driving the new pylon sign. In terms of the photographs arranged vertically that were presented to the Board, he explained that the one on the left is from the construction zone. The base of the pylon sign is visible and all the storefront windows. After the freeway construction, he took photographs from the right hand lane, and the road has an elevation at the curve, and when coming around that curve that building has almost disappeared. The roof is visible and the very top of the two gables. Right now three signs are on that pylon sign. When driving along Highway 101, it is very hard to recognize the sign. Once passed the super DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 0 elevated portion at a more level configuration, all the rest of the stores signage is visible. The Litchfield's property is greatly impacted by the freeway construction. 32 feet has some logic to it. They have a 21 -foot high pylon sign that has been buried from the freeway construction. As part of the sign program, they are trying to get the hiiko sign added to the pylon sign that is roughly 4 feet, so now they are at 31 feet. They are trying to get a little separation visually from the bottom of the new sign above the concrete and that is the reasoning for the 32 feet. The historic "Litchfield's " sign is over 36 feet and palm trees are over 40 feet. The palm trees form a background for the pylon sign, which mitigates its height. He pointed out that San Rafael's Sign Ordinance addresses the impact of a freeway. The sign ordinance has a 21 -foot height limit for pylon or pole -type signs as well as an allowance for 25 feet for freeway oriented pylon or pole -type signs. The City recognizes that the freeway has an impact and the ordinance reads as follows: " The freeway oriented signs are permitted for businesses and properties that directly face a frontage road that is both parallel to and generally level with Highway 101. " They were never level, the wall is six feet above them and now it is 6 feet more. If they take the 25 feet allowed by the ordinance and give the 6 feet additional that is also close to 32 feet. The Board must look at the sign ordinance, visibility and what they are trying to create and it all comes out to a new sign that should be around 31 to 32 feet high in order to have visibility that is now enjoyed by everyone else up and down the freeway. The pylon sign along the freeway being proposed is a handsome sign, not overwhelming due to the building, palm trees and signage behind. He felt it is very appropriate and justified. Chair Olmsted clarified that the concrete barrier wall is continuous along the entire length of East Francisco. Architect Kurtzman responded in the affirmative. Chair Olmsted stated that all businesses along East Francisco are impacted by that same wall. Architect Kurtzman stated that they are further westerly along Francisco and that concrete barrier has not been raised. Also, it is not super elevated. The embankment at Litchfield's is at a higher elevation. They are 6 feet below freeway level and with the new wall they are now 12 feet below. Chair Olmsted clarified that the net difference in change is 6 feet. Architect Kurtzman responded in the affirmative. Huntsberry stated that they do not always see every shop or store in that cluster placed on a sign pylon. They are wayfinding device for that general group of shops and stores. Some of these shopping centers and other groups of stores with multiple numbers of shops do not have every shop listed on their sign tower or pylon. He believed they have a unique advantage over almost everyone along Highway 101 in that they are ignoring the wayfinding properties of the Litchfield's sign at 36 feet. Why not identify the stores as come to the Litchfield's center and shop. Mr. Kurtzman cannot speak for the individual tenants. Huntsberry stated that the hiiko sign is visible to freeway and street traffic and an extra pylon panel is not needed in his view. Mr. Kurtzman believed they suffered from the lack of visibility. The upper right hand photograph at the pylon sign shows a light green color to the left and that is the fagade of hiiko, so it is not that visible. Huntsberry stated that the part of hiiko that is visible happens to be the sign. The pylon sign DRB MINiJTES (Regular) 2/3/09 disappears, but all the tenant signs are visible from the photograph presented by the applicant. He cannot justify making the sign 6 feet taller when all the signs are visible. Chair Olmsted noted that the Motel 6 sign is 3 feet from the monument sign adjacent to it and the message is identical, so he asked why the second sign is necessary. Architect Kurtzman cannot speak to Motel 6 requirements. Wise asked staff to clarify the discrepancy as to the 3 or 6 feet loss in the staff report in regard to page 6. Stafford responded that the proposal is to increase by 11 feet and the minimum 6 feet is the visibility they believe to have lost. Staff believed the actual loss of visibility is closer to 3 feet. Basically the height of that lower panel. Architect Kurtzman pointed out that the actual height added to the freeway is 6 feet of concrete wall above the original 6 feet. Chair Olmsted asked the reason for increasing the size of each panel sign over what is present. Architect Kurtzman responded that it is better proportioned and more visible. He believed this is a reasonable size particularly related to the height they are trying to obtain. Martin Malkin, Attorney representing Litchfield's, discussed the General Plan polices CD -10 and CD -20 regarding consistency on page 5 of the staff report, which relate to economic viability of the project and design to encourage and contribute to economic viability of commercial areas and the design that allows for added visual identification necessary for successful commercial uses. Also, taking into consideration the visual impact on any given roadway. They are in very troubled economic times. While it is not for this particular panel to solve the economic crisis, it seems that element has been missing from the discussion. Businesses moved to the East Francisco Boulevard to get freeway exposure, which they had since the early 1970s with no barrier. Over the years that freeway was developed with a side barrier to protect traffic. With the latest project an embankment was built that curved the road, lowered the sight line from the middle and left hand lanes and increased the size of the concrete wall. The photographs provided appear to be from the second of the right hand lane. If driving in the lanes on the left hand side there is even less visibility of the stores and the store signs. The stores had visibility before the change occurred. This project is attempting to mitigate the great damage inflicted on these shops that their merchandise is no longer visibility from the freeway. They are creating a situation where the signs are clearly visible from the freeway in both directions. This project will provide these businesses more commercial viability. One phrase used in the staff report was "precedent setting, " which he disagreed because this is the only project so adversely effected by the raising of the wall and sloping of the freeway. All the other properties have minimal or no effect from this construction. The agency handling the notices to property owners failed to give notices and no input was provided by the property owners before construction of that wall occurred. As a result, they are looking at a situation where there are substantial losses by these businesses, substantial damages to these businesses and the property owner. They are trying to mitigate those damages and mitigate those losses. Regarding the staff report, some mention about motel doors being changed in color is not occurring. On page 4 there was DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 a discussion about the background color, which is "Kelly Green. " Also, they are not proposing to redo all the motel doors. They are not asking this Board to create precedence, which will not happen because this is the only property affected in this severe manner. Also, they want to move this forward. Time is very important. Businesses are hemorrhaging and they must help stop that hemorrhaging. They are asking for the Board's recommendation. They must move this matter to the next level as soon as possible. He further appreciated the Board's input on this matter. Chair Olmsted questioned the statement that this is the only business affected by the super elevation of the highway, which he found untrue. Attorney Malkin responded that this property is where the embankment was created due to the curve in the road, it appears to be the only business severely impacted. Chair Olmsted believed other businesses along the same street are equally affected by that embankment as well as on the south side. The improvements have significantly altered the exposure of certain businesses notably, so the statement of being the only business effected and that this is not precedent setting seems incorrect. Attorney Malkin maintains that this is the most severely impacted building. Perry Litchfield, applicant, stated that signage is very significant and hoped the Board understands that he would not be present before the Board if there was not a true economic impact that resulted from the freeway construction. He suggested that the Board stand in front of his property and look at the wall and look at the height in comparison to the rest of the wall down East Francisco. The wall established on East Francisco dramatically goes down in size from his property from approximately 12 feet in height down to 3 feet in height. Chair Olmsted and all Board members have visited the site and all completely understand the visual appearance of the wall. Mr. Litchfield pointed out that there are three different architectural styles within one block and Caltrans has been asked to address the visual unsightliness created right in front of this property. This is a very emotional matter and the basis of his comments is that it is logical to any person that when looking at the progression of the wall that it goes from 12 to 3 feet in short order. The major impact is exclusive to the 700 Block of East Francisco Boulevard and particularly the Litchfield property, which is most of the block. The Motel 6 is trying to re-establish freeway visibility by placing the sign on the porte-cochere. The signs are not extremely larger, but proportionately larger. The palm trees were planted back in 1988 and will continue to grow and have become an obstruction to the Litchfield sign. When he first got involved in this project, it is a very emotional matter and the property has been placed in a hole. The commissioned a sign company in the East Bay to renovate the Litchfield sign, so it is energy efficient and have natural appearance again. All will be satisfied when retrofitted to be energy efficient this spring. He never received an approval of a sign application, so he is not hopeful tonight. He is anxious to move forward to the next level. Height of the sign and the color scheme of the Zebra Furniture, Mattress Discounter and Motel 6 are items that cannot be negotiated. to terms of the exception to the rule discussed by staff is completely adverse to all discussions he had with numerous planning staff including the Director and Mayor before attending this meeting tonight, which is 180 degrees from DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 what he was told before the application was submitted. He suspects this application will be forwarded to Planning Commission and then to City Council. They do not want to come back to the DRB. Chair Olmsted opened the public hearing on this item, and seeing no one wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public portion and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion and action. Kent stated that this is a gateway sign to San Rafael. What is adequate signage and are these well-designed signs are the two questions. He is not totally convinced that this is a well-designed sign program. From the photographs provided by the applicant, the top of the hiiko building is seen and hiiko has a better sign design from what is being suggested tonight. Staff suggested that it be part of the entire sign program, but he believed it could standalone. In terms of the pylon sign, there is an argument for some height and staff suggested 25 feet, which he could support. The individual tenant signs are too large on the new freestanding sign. Any pylon sign that tall should have more design detail. He objected to the off-white color and desired a darker color. The Motel 6 sign on the porte- cochere is pointless since it is directly above the monument sign and only the peak is visible from the freeway. He further understands the applicant's argument, but most of the cases are not made very well. Wise agreed the existing hiiko sign is in good condition and that particular store stands out when she visits the site and is not sure if that particular panel is needed. Some of the height and increase to 32 feet has to do with that additional panel and if that panel is removed maybe the 31 feet could be lowered. With respect to the overall height of the pylon, she does not believe it is an appropriate height since it may possible visually compete with the historic Litchfield sign. She suggested a height increase of 6 feet due to the elevated freeway, but 31 feet is not acceptable because it visually competes with a historic resource. She agreed the Motel 6 wall sign on the porte-cochere is not necessary. What exists is a nice architectural feature. The color scheme is fine in her view. She reiterated that if they could stick with the two panel signs on the pylon sign, leave them the size they are and decrease the overall square -footage of the sign program, then she would be comfortable. Alternate Garg agreed it is a gateway sign and very important to San Rafael. There is no height justification for 32 feet in his view. This is excessive. He is not sure if there was any attempt to integrate the new added monument sign with the historic Litchfield sign. If this pylon sign was to move forward more detail is desired. Also, if the hiiko tenants find the green sign acceptable that is fine and the individual hiiko letters are nice and should remain. The height is excessive and found 25 feet acceptable. Summers appreciated the presentation and is looking forward to the Litchfield sign being renovated. 32 feet is excessive and should be reduced. The color and quality of the hiiko sign on the building is very nice and a cabinet sign would be a mistake. He believed the hiiko sign is visible from the freeway and should not be added to the pylon. If that fourth sign is eliminated from the pylon the height could be reduced. Having the pylon sign DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 8 closer to 25 or 26 -foot range would be better. He found the cabinet signs to appear cheap. Visually from a style standpoint, having halo -lit letters is a much more attractive appearance than cabinet signs. The Motel 6 porte-cochere sign is excessive. As the sign is reduced perhaps it becomes proportionally smaller as well. Huntsberry appreciated all the Board's comments. He recognized that the elevated freeway has diminished the visibility of the existing pylon sign. He could support some height increase in the pylon sign. The magic number would be 25 feet maximum. All three sign cabinets from the right hand lane are visible and imagined it would be harder to see in the left hand lanes, but increasing it four feet would get the three cabinet signs on the pylon up to a height readily seen from all lanes of the freeway. The hiiko sign is not needed on the pylon sign. They have an attractive sign with a unique building color that should be maintained. They cannot diminish the importance of the Litchfield sign as a wayfinding device. He could support an increase to 25 feet. Keep Motel 6 on top with the other two signs underneath and eliminate the fourth hiiko sign. He cannot justify raising the overall pylon sign to 32 feet. As far as the Motel 6 sign on the gable end is totally redundant. Very importantly, the pylon sign is not a well-designed sign. It needs to have more attention to detail. They have a predominantly blue motel box on top with a blue cabinet and face, so maybe a blue cabinet on the two sign panels below with the off white face. The pylon sign needs articulation and detail. In summary, the monument sign on Francisco is good for Motel 6; no Motel 6 sign in the gable end; the hiiko sign and building colors as existing are fine; and he would support the increase in the pylon sign from 21 to 25 feet. Chair Olmsted agreed with the Board's comments as well. He felt the present sign for hiiko is better than what is proposed. The sign does not need to appear on the pylon. The pylon sign should be reduced. Sign on porte-cochere is redundant and unnecessary. All other regards, the Board has a consensus. As to colors of the doors, he would love to see them repainted to a darker green to add sparkle to the buildings, but that is not integral to the topic of discussion tonight. Tambomini noted that the sign program does not mandate that the signs must be one color and the Board desired a higher quality sign and the applicant could consider more options in terms of variety, letter styles and colors and have a common background. Staff then summarized the Board's comments as follows: • Support for increasing the height of pylon sign 25 feet to increase visibility that was lost from the freeway construction. • Adjust proportions of that pylon sign as well to match the recommended new height. • Pylon sign is not considered to be well designed and needs more detailing to more architecturally interesting. • The hiiko wall sign and colors should remain as is and should not be modified or incorporated into the pylon sign. • Motel 6 sign on the porte-cochere is redundant, not necessary and not supported. • No issue with the existing door colors, so there is no recommendation as far as change since it is not integral to this proposal. DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 9 Chair Olmsted asked for a motion. Kent moved and Huntsberry seconded, to continue the item to allow the applicant an opportunity to address the consensus items. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Members: Kent, Huntsberry, Chair Olmsted, Summers, Wise NOES: Members: None ABSTAIN: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None E. Discussion Review of Design Review Board Rules and Order Tambo rnirt' ummarized the staff report and explained that the have been amendments made to the\ dinar .e in 2005 and a policy adopted by the and that should be reflected in the rules of er; such as the addition of an Alternate her to the Board and policy establishing a pe nent rotation of officers. Over they ars the Board has also made other suggestions, i uding requesting assignment of permanent staff liaison and making suggestions o w information should be - esented and meetings should be conducted. Given the am t of change that has - /curred since the Rules were last adopted, staff is providing t of the current les of Order to the Board for review, along with Zoning Ordinance al excerpt from Roberts Rules of O Order and provide suggestions on, the items noted above. Staff would and consider that incorporates the 1 interested in bringing forward reep 25/nvironmental and Design Review) and f equests that the Board review the Rules of rents that should be considered, in addition to with an edited version for the Board to review current suggested changes. Staff is also lehanges to staff reports. Huntsberry is comfortable th the suggested or of officers be kept the way it is currently running and vote that in November an December since it is always hard to get a quorum, so one eting to make it happen e ive January 1. Chair Olmsted agreed. Kent pointed out th the rotation has been accepted, so do th ave to vote on the matter since it ha een established for many years. Tambornim p ted that it is treated as a guideline and confirmed each year. Chair Olms d discussed concept review and often it is there first look a e project and as written suggests that what is developed in the hearing is what they get d underst ds where that will be helpful from the applicant's point of view, but e design proceis not all that clean and sometimes changes may indeed invalidate a gen `ally fav 'able review. Mandating that it e the list of items that the applicant has to dea with to et approval is the wrong concept. Tambornini agreed and would offer to come ba DRB MINUTES (Regular) 2/3/09 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 721 — 737 Francisco Blvd. E. ("Litchfield's") —Appeal of Planning Commission's denial on February 24, 2009 of: 1) a Sign Program Amendment to allow an increase in the number and size of signage; 2) an Exception to allow an increase in the height of an existing freestanding pylon sign from 21' to 32'; and 3) an Environmental and Design Review Permit Amendment to allow new building colors for an existing motel/bulk commercial retail complex with highway frontage; APN: 014-204-11; General Commercial (GC) District; Perry Litchfield, appellantlowner; Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Co., applicant; File Nos.: SR08-070; EX09-002; ED08-110; AP09-001. The project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts projects that a public agency denies. No further CEQA is required. MEETING DATEITIME/LOCATION: Monday, April 20, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Steve Stafford, Project Planner at (415) 458-5048 or Steve.stafford@cityofsanrafael.org. You may also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You may also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www. cityofsan rafael-org/G overn ment/City_Clerk/City_Council_Redevelopment_Agen cy_Ag endas. htm. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You may comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You may send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You may also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. if you challenge in court the matter described above, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. ATTACHMENT 6 00 PERRY D. LITCHFIELD 1000 Fourth Street, Ste; 875 San Rafael, CA 94901 tel: 415-459-2000 fax: 415-459-3668 UR , t '; April 9, 2009 i1 R PLANNING Steve Stafford Community Development Department Planning Division via Hand De/ivery 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re 721-737 Francisco Blvd East Sign Program App/cation Dear Steve: This letter is written in furtherance of our most recent meetings and discussions regarding resolving the issues presented by the appeal presently scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 20, 2009. As you are aware, over the course of the last two weeks, there have been extensive meetings and discussions with various members of the Planning Department concerning changes to the proposed signage that could lead us to resolving the issues that have been presented by staff, the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission. The meetings and correspondence have been highly productive and served to generate numerous revisions leading to a more elaborate design and lessening the proposed height from 32' to 28'. I wish to express my appreciation to you, Paul Jensen, Raffi Boloyan , Kraig Tambornini, and Bob Brown. As a result of our efforts, it is my understanding that we have achieved'a design and height that staff will recommend; approvalof. As we discussed, although the costs associated with the installation of this sign far exceeds the original proposal, the end result will be the closest we can come to a win-win situation. The new sign will serve to mitigate the damages caused by the freeway construction which resulted in a wall being raised to approximately 12', along with further sloping of the freeway causing additional loss of vision. While we will never be able to restore the views of the property itself, including the storefront windows, at least motorist will now be able to identify that tenants exist below the wall by viewing the pylon sign. Additionally, staff's input into design has resulted in a significantly` higher quality which will serve to improve the property' in that the new sign will look a lot better than the existing one. All of the effort and resilience of the planning staff has Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 7 been greatly appreciated. By resolving these issues, I am hopeful that we can move i away from the confrontational position of potential litigation, and move towards something that would be more positive for all parties concerned: During my last conversation with Paul Jensen, it was suggested that I provide you with a letter summarizing the reasons why the modified sign design should be approved at the height of 28'. It is my understanding that there is some concern that this might be "precedent setting". it is my belief that approval of this sign will inno way be precedent setting for the following reasons: As set forth in the letter dated January 15, 2009, of Kenneth Kurtzman, architect a copy of which is enclosed,, the subject property is the only one that was negatively impacted bythe recent freeway construction. Mr. Kurtzman provided a`photo montage showing the different views one gets as they are traveling northbound along 101 adjacent to Francisco Boulevard East. As you can see from the photos, only at the area of the subject property is the wall increased from its previous height. This is because it is at a corner where GalTrans`decided to create a strong slope towards the middle of the freeway and significantly increase the height of the barrier. No other property owner along Francisco Boulevard East can claim they were impacted by the construction. The photos show clearly that you can still see all signage of the other businesses as well as their storefront windows. As you know, the Sign Program is designed precisely for the type of facts that we have here. Each Sign Program is evaluated based on its own unique circumstances. Even the provision of exceptions in the Sign Program is designed for dealing with unique circumstances for each different property. It is evident to anyone who drives along the freeway, or down Francisco Boulevard East that this property is the one that was severely impacted by the new freeway construction. This is precisely why the Sign Program needs to be amended, and why any necessary exceptions need to be granted. It is important to note that even with the new sign height, the property will never be able to recapture its previous visibility. The storefronts will remain visually blocked, as will the motel itself. Furthermore, as a result of our mutual efforts to come to a resolution of the differences regarding design and height, the end product now being proposed as an alternative actually has signage which is only 5" higher than the existing signs. Perhaps more importantly, the width has been decreased from 8'4" to 8'.. Therefore, the actual new signage essentially results in no net gain in square footage from the existing sign as far as the actual individual signs are concerned. Of course, this does not take into account the new sign for the fourth major tenant on the sign. With regard to the new sign, please be aware that the building on the property for this sign is 8,300 square feet. The Zebra location is 6,000 square feet. The Page 2 of 3 r r Mattress Discounter location is 5,000 square feet. The motel is the anchor. Based on ' the comparative sizes of the spaces, it is logical that the second largest building on site have a location on the pylon sign. Additionally, since the space has now been vacated, we are in the process of exploring redesign and renovation of the building to better incorporate the design of the building into the other elements on site. During our meetings, I was requested to provide you with further proof of why 28' was`the absolute minimum to regain visibility. You now have new illustrative photos showing that the 28' is the minimum height. The sign's design has been modified so that it has less bulk and mass and has elements which clearly tie it into the design of the buildings which surround it. Once again, thank you for all of the time and consideration that the planning staff members 'put into this process so that we could come up with a solution that makes sense for everyone. With regard to the recommendations that planning may make to the City Council on how to proceed from here, it is my view that experienced and qualified individuals at the Community Development Department have spent numerous hours with design details to come up with a far superior sign. Additionally, a great deal of time was spent on analysis of height. Even Paul Jensen took the time to drive by from all different angles and take photographs to confirm the loss of visibility and the need to raise the sign to the 28'. It would seem counter-productive to prolong the process by going any further than the City Council. l As you know, it is my request that you recommend that the City Council dispose of the appeal by accepting the alternative at the hearing on April 20, thereby putting an end to this entire process and allowing us all to move on to other things. I respectfully submit that any further review of a sign would appear to be unnecessary and counter- productive. In any event, I am pleased that we were able to come to a resolution that staff can support. I remain available to provide you with any additional information you may need for your consideration. Barber Sign Company will be providing you with updated materials so that the City Council has everything it needs in front of it for its consideration on April 20, 2009. I Your courtesy, cooperation and professionalism are greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, PERRY 0. LNTCHFPE Perry D. Litchfield Enc. i cc: Bob Brown, Paul Jensen, l2affi Boloyan, Kraig Tambornini Page 3 of 3 Kenneth Kurtzman, Architect KURTZMAN ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR DESIGN P.O. BOX 854 BELVEDERE, CALIFORNIA 94920 Ph: 415-435-2535 Fax: 415-457-2022 The businesses along E. Francisco Blvd. that have been severely impacted by the recent Highway 101 freeway construction are Hiiko Modern Furniture in the building at 711 E. Francisco and the two businesses located in the adjacent building, Zebra Furniture at 727 E. Francisco and Mattress Discounters at 733 E. Francisco, which are both located in the same building that is also part of Motel 6. As can be seen from the sequential photos taken through the windshield driving along Highway 101, because of the new increased height of the roadway embankment and the concrete barrier wall along the elevated curve of the freeway in front of the subject properly, the two buildings have almost vanished from sight. The Hiiko store only has a few feet of its front wall visible above the barrier, and the larger building now only has its roofs showing above the barrier. Before the freeway construction, the buildings and their storefront windows were clearly visible from the freeway as shown in the first photo, and the full height of the pylon sign was also visible. Now, because of the freeway construction, only the top portion of the pylon sign is exposed above the concrete barrier wall, and the lowest signboard on the pylon is obscured. As seen in the second photo, and as experienced when driving on the freeway, signage that is just above the level of the freeway wall is not prominent at all and it is very easy to not even notice that it is there, particularly during the daytime when the Motel 6 sign is not illuminated. As you progress northwesterly down the freeway beyond the new elevated curve and the level of the roadway is lower, the other buildings and their storefronts along the freeway are still clearly visible. Even with eventual economy recovery the businesses adjacent to the new elevated curve will still be severely affected by lack of any visibility from the freeway. The only thing that can mitigate their current lack of visibility from the freeway is a pylon sign of adequate height and visibility that lets let the public know where their stores are located. The only way to provide adequate signage for the Hiiko store is to add it to the proposed pylon sign as shown in the exhibits. In addition to the proposed height of 32 feet for the new pylon sign, the lettering also needs to be increased beyond it's current size because it is too difficult to read the store signs as you are passing by along the freeway at relatively high speed, particularly as you are rounding a curve and there is merging traffic. We urge you to favorably consider this pylon sign proposal. It is what is required to provide adequate signage visibility for these three stores equal to the visibility of the signage that the other businesses enjoy along this stretch of freeway. January 1 , 2009