Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 11, 2011 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT

12:30 pm
signing to better integrate the proposal with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. it would ensure better compatibility. the project sponsor is here to make a presentation as well. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, members of the commission. i am representing in the project sponsor. we were here four weeks ago for the conditional use authorization for the target that was approved. we are back here tonight for this afternoon, showing you the sign ordinance. we had to wait on that. we work calendar couple weeks ago.
12:31 pm
-- were calendared a couple weeks ago. it will show you some of the design elections we have made. adam miller is the representative of the ownership group, and he will make that presentation. we are all here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i will walk you through a brief presentation highlighting some of the aspects that are before you. we had three main goals as relates to sign district at the property. one is to create a consistent program across the property. right now it is very inconsistent between the various signs the tenants have put out, other locations, etc. we wanted to replace the
12:32 pm
antiquated silage that is there today and we wanted to have this ability and circulation. better something that has plagued the property over its time, especially when it is changed from a single tenant used to multi tenant use in the early 1990's. to give you some examples of the current condition of the property -- there is one existing sign where the former merchant had a sign on their right now. best buy put up a number of signs within the existing window based. they have also hung banners for potential hires. each of the tenants have mounted their sign edge on the passat. these are all prior to our ownership. they are consistent with what the code allows. the other important thing to note is these are allowed per the leases at the tenants have
12:33 pm
with the property. we cannot just take down the signs. we do not have the ability to do so. we are proposing integrated signed it and we need to provide them with other options, because we do not have the right to take down the signs. this is an image that you all saw a couple weeks ago. this shows, this shows the integration of the additional signs all along. -- along geary. it shows the signs we have introduced along geary, masonic, o'farrell. from some of your feedback we have heard two weeks ago, we're looking at a couple options we wanted to show you. these are some of the recommendations. we have approached the signs and
12:34 pm
we have reduced their scale as you go down geary. the main sign, the other as you go down is smaller in scale, hopefully tying into the recommendation of having more subordinate blades has to go down. instead of the panels that we have previously -- the place themselves. just trying to respond to your previous comments. the other comments, as it relates to the screens, the colors, that. we have shown you one other element where we changed it to a singular color. as we continue to work through with planning staff, i think there are a lot of different options in your. between the green, the yellow, and the orange, i think the intent was not to have something that would become more
12:35 pm
prominence than the building itself. the set its is to replace an update antiquated signs at the property. this is the sign proposed at lyon and geary. it helps as an integrated britt -- as an integrated plan. as you know from the property, we have these separate properties. you cannot go to another area from the parking lot. you have to make an informed decision.
12:36 pm
as you can see -- this is a rendering of what we proposed. these are the structures along o'farrell, and it is important to note the cited as we proposed and the height is to ensure we get over the obstructions. it would not have two-hour parking typically surrounding @. these are the major way finding siphonage -- signs as you go into the parking lot.
12:37 pm
would cut down on the contest and issues and also cut down on traffic that could seep into the surrounding neighborhoods because people make the wrong decision and the need to circle around, given that o'farrell is a one-way street. these animations will take you up and down o'farrell. the first reflect our proposed sign its height. we will show this first and then we will show a second animation that shows the proposed seven- foot level. the instructions and everything else, both animations are
12:38 pm
identical. it shows a difference between the 15-foot and the seven-foot height. we are driving up and down -- sorry. i apologize. the key is we have cars on the street. we cars going into the parking lot. the key for the signs is to get above the instructions. as people are driving down o'farrell, they can make an informed decision. and they are not making a last- minute decision either.
12:39 pm
the cars that will be on the street and pedestrians coming from the high school -- it is really keep that decisions can be made and we're finding will be visible well in advance of the decision making time to make the turn. we have on suv there, just as an example. the sine it can be seen with larger vehicle obstruction's. -- the sign can be seen with larger vehicle obstructions. this is the science we proposed. this one shows the signage at the acceptable level. all the conditions along the street are the same. in this case come up we have the second parking lot. the signs are not visible. there was an obstruction in the drive aisle. as you drive up, you see a sign.
12:40 pm
now you see it coming into making a last-minute decision to make a turn. this highlights the importance of having be signed it to be viewed from the streets without obstructions, and drivers can make decisions well in advance of their turn. giving that this is multi-tier parking, this is the way we can cut down on circulation issues, cars coming in and out of the neighborhood. so, just to show you again -- the 15 and the seven-foot examples. and thank you very much for your time. president olague: i would like to open it up for public comment
12:41 pm
at this time. is there any public comment on this issue? on the issue of the -- ok, the presentation that was just made. >> as you did talk about integration. i am thinking about the neighborhoods surrounding the area. how are you going to integrate them into being part of that process? we spend our money in these communities. we are the biggest conglomerate as far as buying of any community, and i want to know how are you going to reintegrate people who live there into the building and into working and being a part of that process in that community. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? >> i am president of the
12:42 pm
neighborhood association, and we are the association that abuts the center right on o'farrell street, and i would like to speak in support of creating the special sign district. the center has been struggling to attract customers and key tenants, and as you know, a large portion of the city is currently situated -- the center is an important shopping alternative for our neighborhood and the city in general, and the committee feels it is extremely vital decenter survives. will support all the changes -- we support all the changes. we need the center to make this a viable again. i have lived across the street from the center on and off since 1957. there have been several owners.
12:43 pm
this group is the only group of owners that has actively engaged our neighborhood. they are constantly kept us up to date, informed, in the loop. we also feel that the proposed monument signs, the 15-foot level across o'farrell, currently customers are confused as to which lot they should enter. every day, several consumers overshoot their parking lot, and several tried to head the wrong way on a one-way street. i did not even know -- i have lived there almost all my life -- i did not know they were there. they have got to be high enough that cars can see them. the situation right now creates a very hazardous situation. they do not look both ways.
12:44 pm
they are looking where they think the traffic is going to be, if they look at all. they are not going to see those cars. the plans include minimizing risk and controlling traffic. thank you. president olague: thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. i am confused parent. my son is starting at the high school this fall. i have many, many times gone the wrong way trying to go to payless, mervyn's. i am the one waitperson. i have been in many many lots. i do applaud the open discussion on let's get the one-way traffic blowing and make -- flowing and
12:45 pm
make office depot accessible. she was talking about integration in the community. they do not want to shake hands with us on the subway. they are not opening their doors to give our teachers gift cards are any thought of appreciation. please honor the high school students beating they are part of the neighborhood. they want to come shopping. please open their doors to us. i hope payless or mervyn's or anyone else in the neighborhood would shake hands with the students at our school. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public
12:46 pm
comment on this item? >> my name is jim wilter. i am directly opposite the parking lot entrance, and for many years, i watched the old sears sign -- not a very attractive sign, but it did not bother me. you have got to have the height, because i know i do not want to have to dodge a sign -- a driver trying to redesign with type two small. i support the project. and thank you. president olague: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: thank you. i have a question for the project sponsor in regards to
12:47 pm
the sign at masonic and o'farrell, which staff is proposing to lower the height, but i assume your preference is to stay with the 35-foot height on the sign? >> yes. commissioner antonini: i wanted to clarify that. i agree with what you are saying. i'd like to support the project sponsor actually on the various items that came up. i think we have conformity in subjugating the blade signs along gearty as was presented to keep that one main shopping center sign the predominant sign, which it is the only one now. i think those things are fine. as far as the windows, and the decorative elements that were introduced, i do not know that we need to allow these windows
12:48 pm
to be visible. first of all, i understand the windows cannot be opened anyway because most of the merchandisers have i asked for the ability to use the space for merchandise. so, he will see these blank windows there you cannot see through anyway, which is not attractive. they are not attractive when they were first built, in my opinion. i think the pattern there as presented by project sponsor would probably be preferable to nothing at all and seeing these painted-out windows, which is all you will be able to have, because i think contractually, you are not going to be able to have open windows and show the inside of the store. so, on the height of the signs, i do agree with the 35-foot height on the directional sign at the corner of o'farrell and masonic that announces the
12:49 pm
center for those coming northbound on masonic and i support the 15-foot directional signs for the reasons presented, that being a one-way street. very hard to make your decision as to which it lot to get into, and when you to get into the wrong lot, it is difficult to get from one store to another. i had the experience of last year where i found street parking in december, in the evening. the lighting was not good. i was trying to get into best buy to buy a a giants world series video for some friends for christmas, and you could not get in. there was no entrance on geary and masonic, and i assumed there would be 1. there was a lot of exercise going up the stairs to wear best buy was. anything you can do to make it easier for people, not only on pedestrians, but for vehicles to
12:50 pm
get to the right places, there will be a lot less people searching for parking. this can be done in a peaceful way. the fact that the signs are higher does not mean it is less desirable. i would support the concept in general, and i would ask that we go ahead and approve as proposed by project sponsor without staff modifications at the height of the signs. president olague: commissioner fong? commissioner fong: thank you. i will take a littl different approach, commissioner antonini. i think we all looked at the sears site. my personal experience with that left-hand turn is the cars parked on the street would impede you from seeing which lot
12:51 pm
to go into. if we are serious about the parking spaces, if we shipped the parking spaces down, that will give more visibility turning in. i am ok with the proposed 15- foot, 17-foot signs. i would propose maybe a 20-foot larger sign. i honestly think that would probably be an improvement for the building and the landscaping, that the overall visual nature of the building is better and folks will have an easier time. those are my thoughts. i think that is all. thank you. commissioner moore: i am very glad the project sponsor did some work and was able to present some visual solutions. i was talking with him earlier
12:52 pm
in the week. i was very much opposed to the approach, because it was just the same package as it was two or three weeks ago, which i did not approve of. however, i think the presentation about be modifications for the building appearance, facing the major streets -- i do believe that turning the signs to what you are showing, a singular sign with letters applied is the right way to go. in the corporate identity will come from on board support it, what is really a grass-roots solution. turning back the building, i think, is extremely important. mr. miller, a could not see on your slide -- as to whether you were suggesting -- on the corner of masonic?
12:53 pm
you are showing this turn back into -- do i still see letters on there? i thought i did, but in not quite sure what you have in mind there. >> yes, we did a singular color. we did have a tenant lettering, as was previously proposed. the only change today was related to the colors of the screen's. >commissioner moore: we would like a uniform color, but he would still have distinguished letters? >> the design was for three tenants, yes. commissioner moore: this is not applied to the window pane itself? this is suspended in front or in rear of the window? >> the screen would be in front of the window, actually mounted on the building, and the tenants sign it would be mounted on the screen. nothing would be mounted on the window itself.
12:54 pm
>> it is the same design. it is just the colors are changed. it would cover the area, and that is the fact. it would cover the same area. there would still be signed on at. the proposal is rather than having the yellows and the oranges, it is a series of great tons. commissioner moore: i can live with that. it would be nice to have silkscreen on the window itself, but that is probably asking too much, huh? i think one of the problems has to do with parking on the left side of the street, as commissioner fong pointed out. i think it also has to do with it the signs being set too far back in the property. have you explored whether to move them closer, towards the
12:55 pm
street, towards the sidewalk side? >> the position of the signs we have shown are relatively close to the edge of the street. that are pretty much close to the edge of our property line. we put them as close as we can. so, the exact distance of each of their sons would still have to be determined. we tried to -- we tried to move the buildings closer. commissioner moore: it looks like roosevelt to me. completely suburban. it is taking a city street and making it like a suburban driveway. is something i have a problem with. is there any way we could study
12:56 pm
and help the developer move those, to give them at a lower height, which i am strongly opposed to? >> that was my concern as well, that they be more in keeping with the character of that st.. we can certainly replace them -- commissioner moore: the second problem is they come massively 15-feet higher. taller signs on transparent legs so you can see the buildings beyond. so i would suggest the
12:57 pm
department pursue the lower sign category and find a way to help the developer sum up something. >> if i may, i think we share the same concern. we do not want people driving around the block the three times. clearly, the signs are needed. it is just a question of how tall they need to be to be visible and where they are placed. commissioner moore: 1 in coming into the driveway and see the signs, visible or not, and i am not wearing glasses, if i passed the intersection, so to speak. should these signs be announcing the driveway, rather than marking the driveway? that is another way of doing it. a different approach to sign inch. -- signage. i prefer the former to the latter. i do not wear a glasses driving.
12:58 pm
that is another alternative we could work out with lower signs anyway. >> can i jump in with a question? it is on signs. can you have signs overhanging the sidewalk? cracks in the public right-of- way? no. -- >> in the public right of way? no. commissioner antonini: just to push the street out? >> i do not think you can. you know better than i do. >> as with regular businesses, we have limits as to how much the suns can project over the sidewalk. -- signs can project over the sidewalk. commissioner antonini: we are considering a special assignment district. can we have something -- we're
12:59 pm
not going to resolve it today, i can tell. but this can follow along the lines of commissioner moore saying, that this can follow along the pole lines, overhang the sidewalk and come out further? maybe as commissioner moore and commissioner miguel indicated, having it come prior to the entry? i am quite open about how high these things are. commissioner moore: i have a sense that everybody supports this standard to be realized and 60. is just a question of -- it is just a question of detail. of course, we wanted to be there, but i do not wanted to be a fallback.