HomeMy WebLinkAbout218 California Drive - Staff ReportP . r. . 12/ 13/az
Item #6
�1EM0 T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: MASTER SIGN PERMIT AND SIGN EXCEPTION FOR 212-218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
The applicant, David Kimmel, is requesting a master sign permit for the five businesses
located in a single structure at 212-218 California Drive. Four of the businesses front
on California Drive and one fronts on West Lane (although it appears to have a California
Dr. address) Based on Title 22 Chapter 22.16 of the Municipal Code the building is
entitled to 102 SF of signage on the primary frontage (California Drive) and 50 SF of
signage on the secondary frontage (West Lane). The proposed signage permit requests
152 SF on the primary frontage and 35 SF on the secondary frontage. Thus the request
for primary frontage is 49% (50 SF) above what is allowed and the secondary frontage
is 30% (15 SF) less than allowed.
City staff have reviewed the request. The Fire Marshal (memo November 9, 1982) comments
that the Fire Department is opposed to any sign designating a building as east when it
fronts on a street called West Lane. The City Engineer (memo November 8, 1982) and
Chief Building Inspector (verbal) had no comments. Nancy Woods,representing the ap��li-
cant, explains in her letter (date stamped October 29, 1982) the reason for the master
sign permit request. She notes that uniform signage would allow the property owner and
city to achieve a better looking signage on the building and in the area while still
providing each tenant considerable freedom to adequately advertise his business. She
points out that under the proposed program each tenant would have an awning sign,
window sign and unifvrm perpendicular sign.
At the study session the Commission suggested staff review other master signage programs.
Two were identified, Fox Mall and Avenue Arcade. The Fox Mall signage was not handled
under a master sign permit because the signs are all interior and not subject to city
sign regulation. A sign permit was issued for the Fox Mall identification sign on
Burlingame Avenue. In 1974 a uniform signage program was approved for the Avenue
Arcade (1110 Burlingame Avenue). This proposal included size, color and sign illumina-
tion (type and hours). The program proposed 94 SF of main identifying signs and 110 SF
of tenant exterior signs for a total of 204 SF of signage on the site (P.C. minutes
July 22, 1974). The Avenue Arcade proposal was generally consistent with the draft
limits as suggested in the Planning Department's August 1973 policy report on signs:
Policy Burlingame Avenue 144 SF
proposal Burlingame Avenue 146 SF
Policy California Drive 75 SF
proposal 60 SF
In 1970 the Commission approved a uniform sizing signage program at 1801 E1 Camino Real,
the Burlingame Plaza area. This proposal was for 10 signs (5 on Magnolia and 5 on
Trousdale Drive) 24" high and varying in length up to 14', depending upon the front
footage of the individual store. A variance was required at the time because the signs
were affixed to a marquee which projected 8' over the sidewalk. The purpose of the
signage program was to create a symmetrical appearance (P.C. minutes July 27, 1970).
There have been no requests for a master signage program since the new sign code was
adopted in February, 1977. The theme of the previous proposals appears to focus on
achieving a uniform appearance with equal opportunity for signage offered to each
tenant/individual store front. The current proposal is consistent with this; however,
it exceeds the current guidelines by 49% in terms of total signage on the primary street
frontage.
-z-
Planning staff's corrments focus on the wording on the secondary frontage and the
deviation from the objective of uniformity in the signage program created by the deli's
awning sign. Staff feels it is inappropriate when a building's rear entrance is on
West Lane to place the words California East on the building. In addition East Lane
is immediately adjacent on the other side of the railroad tracks, thus causing further
confusion. The California East copy now on the building was recently painted on without
receipt of a sign or any other permit from the city.
The second concern is of less significance. We merely point out that if an objective
of the sign program is to achieve a uniform appearance that 'works together' then the
bold stripes of the awning over the deli are not consistent with that objective.
In granting a sign exception which this signaqe program requires the Planning Commission
must make findings (Code Sec. 22.06.110):
(a) any exception granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure
that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situate; and
(b) because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including
size, shape, topography, street frontage, location or surrounding land use;
the size or height of the building on which the sign is to be located; the
classification of the street or highway on which the sign is located or
designed primarily to be viewed from, the strict application of zoning regu-
lations is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and should include consideration
of the following conditions in the hearing:
1. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's memo of November 9, 1982 be met
and the copy of the sign on the secondary frontage of the building read
"California-West";
2. that the master sign program submitted,date stamped October 29, 1982,be the
basis for issuing future sign permits to the businesses at 212-218 California
Drive.
� '"'�, �
Margaret onroe
City Planner
MM/s
12/6/82
cc: David Kimmel
Woods' Signs