Loading...
PC Minutes 1998-10-20ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1998 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chair Lubin presiding. Present are Commissioners Keen, Parker, Greene and Haney. Community Development Director Jim Hamilton and Associate Planner Helen Elder are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL The minutes of September 15, 1998 were corrected by Commissioner Greene under the Rodeo Heights item to show that due to a possible conflict of interest, he was excused from the Commission and did not take part in the discussion. With regard to the September 1, 1998 minutes, Commissioner Parker stated that Page 3, the last paragraph under comments by Otis Page is confusing, and requested the comments by Mr. Hatch begin a new paragraph. Also, those minutes do not include the discussion with CalTrans about the traffic concerns regarding Levels of Service F on the East/West Branch intersection, and she would like to have that specific information documented. Community Development Director Hamilton suggested going back and listening to that particular portion of the tapes and incorporating the information into the minutes. Chair Lubin suggested continuing approval of the minutes of the September 1 meeting until the requested information has been incorporated into the minutes. The minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of September 9, 1998 and September 15, 1998 as corrected were approved on motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 98 -548 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98 -565, CONSTRUCTION OF A 27,250 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAURETAIL BUILDING AND LOT SPLIT; APPLICANT: ROBERT ANDERSON; LOCATION: 200 STATION WAY. Community Development Director Hamilton advised that discussions have been held with the applicant regarding this item and they are looking at revisions to the project and, therefore, it is recommended that this item be continued to the November 4 meeting. On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Haney, and unanimously carried, this item was continued to the November 4, 1998 meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 96 -118 (97 -124) AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE 98 -210, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE FIVE CITIES CENTER; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY. Associate Planner Helen Elder advised that the applicant has submitted a letter outlining the revisions to the Planned Sign Program. The applicant and his representative are here to answer any questions regarding the changes. In response to Commissioner Greene's question as to what authority the Community Development Department or the City has in general regarding the location of the existing business signs such as the Festival Cinema and the Sizzler, Ms. Elder stated that the theater and the Sizzler are on separate parcels under separate ownership. She advised that an application was recently received from the Sizzler for a Planned Sign Program and architectural review, so the Planned Sign Program will be coming to the Commission. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 2 October 20, 1998 Also, the same would be true for the Festival Cinema if they want to make changes they would have to make application and come before the Commission. Chair Lubin made a brief statement regarding the letter addressed to him by Mr. Mann, representing AGRA/Five Cities, Ltd. He stated he is pleased with the tone of the letter in the sense that AGRA wants to compromise further, however, he is not pleased with the last statement of the letter and would like to make it clear that he has no ability to remove political or subjective desires from anyone other than himself that he can vote on. He commented he would like everyone to understand that the last sentence was not intended to mean anything more than a hopeful consideration from Mr. Mann. Chair Lubin re -opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to give his presentation. Howard Mann, representing AGRA/Five Cities, stated after the last meeting he received input from a number of Planning Commissioners to take a look at the Code and make further compromises, which he did. Rather than going through all of the changes, they put it in writing and provided the Planning Commission with specific details of the adjustments that were made. He pointed out that, with the exception of the major pylon identification sign, all other signs on West Branch Street were eliminated. He stated he has put forth his best efforts to compromise with the direction received from the Planning Commission and he feels the letter speaks for itself. In response to Commissioner Greene's question regarding the color scheme submitted by the applicant, Mr. Mann advised they are giving the Planning Commission three altematives to choose from. He noted that any national tenant has a right to use their own logo, and anyone that is not a national tenant would use the chosen color scheme. Commissioner Greene referred to the Gateway Tower elevation received by the Community Development Department on October 14"', stating it is different from the July 1 elevation of the same Gateway Tower, and requested an explanation as to this difference. Mr. Mann advised that the substantial difference is that there are five tenant identification signs, rather than four, however, they kept the same total square footage in terms of lettering; 70 square feet. He pointed out that the size of the lettering or the name of the center has decreased to accommodate the proportion of five signs in order to get the aesthetics to work properly. He also pointed out that up to 300 square feet was entitled, so it is their feeling that this is consistent with the Commission's request for 70 square feet. Mr. Mann also indicated that the signs will all be interior illuminated. He advised that entry monument signs on either entry will not have the center identification logo; it will show two tenants. Commissioner Greene referred to the Lucky /Sav -On sign and the request that the Bank of America sign be included on the facade to the right and asked if that sign would be illuminated. Dorian Fortner, representing Lucky Stores, stated that the sign would be internally illuminated channel letters with the Bank of America logo. In response to Commissioner Greene's question if it would only be illuminated during the bank's business hours, Mr. Fortney advised the sign would be illuminated at all times as allowed by the City with all banks. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 3 October 20, 1998 In answer to Commissioner Parker's question regarding Building M as being one building with several small restaurants, Mr. Mann advised they do not know yet, however, their expectation is for it to be one restaurant. The building is not designed at this time but there is some interest from a particular tenant, so they felt it would be appropriate to have some flexibility to have a couple of different basic pad configurations. He commented that each individual restaurant operator has a different floor plan, and at the time it is agreed upon who the restaurant owner is, they will have to come back and get a building permit and approval from the Architectural Advisory Committee and Planning Commission on the elevations and the signage. Commissioner Haney stated that at the last meeting he had made some notes on the entry sign and the monument sign, and those notes reflected a 6' x 1' for both of those tenant ID signs. Now the one for the main tenant identification is 8' x 6'. Mr. Mann explained that, after taking into consideration all of the Commissioners' comments, they tried to come up with a plan that would be consistent with those comments. He stated that previously they had signs all throughout West Branch and 1' x 6' signs on the pylon signs and a direction to try to keep it at 70 square feet. What they did was take all the information, mixed it around and came out with five signs 1 -1/2 feet high and 8 feet long, 70 square feet, and no signs on West Branch Street. Commissioner Haney commented the signage materials on Building G shows signs on two or three sides of the building, stating the calculations are unclear, specifically looking for Sign G5, which used to be a part of the program and is not in the calculations now. He asked if that has been deleted or if it was left off of the calculations? Mr. Mann noted that it should have been taken off of the graphic, and the summary is correct. Mr. Mann further noted that the southeast elevation, bottom right -hand comer of Exhibit E will be one sign. Michael Heinrich, 5725 Spahn Avenue, Lakewood, representing Musil Govan Azzalino, Inc. referred to Page 4 of the most recent site plan, stating there is an error in the graphics and those signs should be taken off of the drawing. The sign being deleted is the sign on the southeast, which is the sign closest to Rancho Parkway. Chair Lubin referred to the project summary sheet for Building I, stating it shows the sign area calculations of two signs; the west elevation at 96 square feet and the south elevation at 190 square feet. The column titled "Allowable Sign Area" one shows 250 square feet and one shows 192 square feet, and yet the proposed request was smaller or reversed from that. Mr. Heinrich explained that the "Allowed Sign Area" is based on the proposal assembled by Mr. Hamilton for each elevation. Chair Lubin clarified that, in this case, the reality is the larger sign would be on the front of the building, and on the side of the building, which is actually the bigger image, would have a smaller sign. In answer to Commissioner Haney's questions regarding the signage totals on the last page of the Project Signage Summary under "Proposed Area Square Footage" pertaining to Building F, Mr. Heinrich advised that the table at the top that totals all of the sign area is broken down into front, rear and sides. One of the signs has since been taken off on Building F on the south elevation, however, the graphics still shows that sign, therefore, on the Project Signage Summary, looking at the side and rear of Building F, there is no signage there. He further stated that the same is true for Building L; the sign on the north closest to Rancho Parkway has been deleted, and the one that remains is on the west wall facing the parking lot. He noted they are still proposing to have three signs for Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 4 October 20, 1998 Building H. With regard to Building M, Commissioner Haney commented since it is not known what is going to happen there, this is something we are not deciding on at this time. He referred to the note showing 202 square feet. Mr. Heinrich advised the note was meant to clarify that this sign program is shown to have multiple shop buildings, and once tenants and frontages are determined they may establish their sign area based on the PD sign standards that Mr. Hamilton has come up with. Mr. Mann suggested excluding Building L at this point until they get a tenant, and then come back with a plan based upon the Planned Sign Program that is place. For clarification, Commissioner Greene referred to Page 6 of the Planned Sign Program regarding Building K, stating it is his understanding that the applicants are not proposing to put a sign on the east elevation of that building. Mr. Heinrich acknowledged that was correct. Kirk Scott, 520 Via Vaquero, stating he is representing the Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development. He stated the Citizens Committee of Responsible Development (CCRD) is supportive of the recent submittal which shows the removal of the monument signs and one of the two entry signs. He requested that the Planning Commission carefully consider the need for any entry signage on Rancho Parkway. He pointed out that from any driveway you can clearly see every store in the center, and if you are on Rancho Parkway you are in the shopping center, you don't need signs to indicate that. He stated the CCRD also vigorously opposes the draft ordinance submitted by Mr. Hamilton. He stated it is inappropriate and yet another indication of how Community Development has sided with this developer and turned their backs on the sentiment of the community. The CCRD can perhaps justify a slight variance from the 70 square foot requirement for the larger stores, but nothing close to what Mr. Hamilton suggests. He further stated that when Mr. Heinrich showed an overhead a few meetings ago in an attempt to demonstrate the disproportionate size of 70 square foot building signs, he showed it without color and without dimensions, and that makes a tremendous difference in determining visibility. Mr. Scott further stated that the CCRD is also opposed to the tenant ID signs. He commented that the stores pay money every year to have their names on entry signs, and this is more money in the pocket of the developer when he sells this space. They are paying for one thing only, and that is advertising. Advertising is prohibited by the current Sign Ordinance. On another issue, Mr. Scott stated that a very grave matter has come to the attention of the CCRD, and they are asking the Planning Commission for assistance in resolving it. He advised it is their understanding that the City staff issued permits for the Planned Sign Program on September 15 They did so without specific design and engineering specifications. This was done prior to the Planning Commission approval of the program. It means that while the Commission was determining the outcome of the Planned Sign Program, this developer was sitting in the audience with permits in his pocket. He stated that the CCRD is formally asking that the Planning Commission request a full public disclosure from the City Manager on how this situation could have occurred. He stated it is their understanding that the City Manager claimed no knowledge of this matter until Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 5 October 20, 1998 October 7 He also claims that he immediately instructed the City Attorney to rescind the permits. This is yet another example of how this project has been mis- managed from the outset. Those permits were issued illegally, without the knowledge of the Planning Commission or the CCRD, and the CCRD wants to know how and why this happened. He further stated that if a full public disclosure is not forthcoming, the CCRD will explore other investigative avenues. Don Selby, stated that during the past year, Washington Mutual bought out Great Western Bank, and their sign changed. As of October 1 , there was a merger involving the Bank of America. He asked if that means there will be a different logo and different sign than what is being proposed? Hearing no further comments from the audience, Chair Lubin closed the public portion of the meeting and reserved further comments to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Greene suggested going through these signs building by building and address them either collectively as Signs A -1 through A -4, or singularly as A -1, A -2, A -3, etc. He also recommended the Commission take into consideration the applicant's suggestions regarding the gateway tower and entry monuments on Rancho Parkway as part of the recommendation to the City Council. Chair Lubin suggested taking a vote on each sign as discussed. Commissioner Greene stated that his suggestion is to deal with the signs that are before the Commission and then to rely on the Proposed Sign Criteria as modified by the Commission to deal with the tenants that are unknown. For instance, the In -Line shops would apply to Buildings J, K and B. Mr. Mann stated there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is being requested. He noted they are not asking for anything regarding the In -Line Shops, and all they want is to be entitled to what currently is in the PD, and for purposes of example, they could include what that would be. However, their package is what is in the current Code, so there is nothing to approve because it already exists with regard to all of the shops, which are limited by the PD. If they are not a national tenant with a logo, they use that lettering and coloring and their name. If it is a national tenant and they use their logo, then it is qualified by the PD. As an example, Mr. Mann stated if Radio Shack came in Building B and took 1200 square feet, the PD very clearly states what that should be, and they put their logo up and that's it. Community Development Director Hamilton suggested that since there are some tenants and the Commission knows specifically what the sign requests are from the applicants, the Commission could take action on those signs. For all other buildings that do not have specific requests, the Commission could simply indicate "Building H per current code standards ". After putting that together, the Commission could direct staff to come back with a final package that specifically identifies that within the Sign Program on their summary sheet stipulating what the criteria is. Mr. Hamilton explained how the sign criteria is used. He stated that, typically, this is the type of thing that is created for a center of this nature, and this was developed using that standard methodology. He advised that, basically you identify those stores where you know large tenants are going to and you know those tenants typically are requesting larger signage. Then you use the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 6 October 20, 1998 criteria as a package to establish a basic set of standards subject to future approval of individual signs by the Commission as indicated by the table. Each one is typically broken down by square footage for a particular size store. Mr. Hamilton briefly reviewed the proposed Sign Criteria for the Five Cities Center, stating the criteria is based on the applicant's submittal and looking at a way to administer a methodology to manage sign criteria for future tenants. Commissioner Parker stated she recently drove to the other side of the freeway to look at the Albertson Center and K-Mart signs, and could clearly read all of the signs in those centers visible from the other side. She questioned whether or not signs posted in the monument signs, as well as signs posted on the buildings, are necessary since they seem to serve the same purpose. Tower Sign - Commissioner Haney agreed with Commissioner Parker's comments, stating also that the tenants will principally draw from the five cities area and everyone here will know who the tenants are, so the notion of the signage on the gateway tower, in his opinion, is advertising as opposed to useful tenant identification. He further stated he would support a larger center identification sign without the tenant ID's. However, if it is the consensus of the Commission that there is going to be tenant identification for some of the majors, then that is going to effect how he views the building signage and the amount of square footage that is appropriate there. Also, in his opinion, the center identification should be the only sign here. Commissioner Keen stated that with the proposal of taking off the signs at each end of the project, he doesn't have a problem with the tenant ID signs on the Tower. Commissioner Greene stated he has taken several tours of the site and tried to visualize where the buildings are, and has tried to develop some sort of understanding as to what those signs are going to tell us. He commented that tenant identification signs may be relevant and necessary in communities where there are major competing shopping centers; that is not the case here. This community does not have anything nearly as large as this shopping center, and shopping patterns in this community are deeply ingrained in each individual and the location of facilities are well known to thousands of people living in the south county, as well as a greater number that live to the north and south of us. He noted that the Pismo Beach Outlet Center does not have tenant identification, and the same is true for Costco and the Home Base in Santa Maria. Commissioner Greene expressed his appreciation for the applicant's willingness to come forward and eliminate those project identification monuments at each end of Branch Street, nevertheless, in his opinion, our community would be better served by a much larger representation of the Five Cities logo on the Gateway Tower. It was his feeling that the inclusion of a variety of signs including Wal`Mart, Lucky- Sav -On, Marshalls and Office Max with different colors, different corporate logos and a lack of uniformity will simply serve to identify the location of those buildings and, in his opinion, unnecessarily. Also, taking into consideration that Branch Street will have an extremely large movie theater sign, as well as the Sizzler sign, the clutter of the number of signs with different colors and different identifying markers for the various tenants will create a look that, in his opinion, detract from the quality of the center. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 7 October 20, 1998 Chair Lubin stated he could probably support tenant identification for the small tenants, however, he would have a problem supporting tenant identification for the super majors who are going to have enough identification from just about anywhere you drive by the center. He would not have a problem with a half a dozen names up there of small tenants, nicely done in a consistent color, but he does have a problem with the majors being identified there. He commented there will not be any problems identifying War Mart, Lucky Sav -On, Office Max, etc., but we will have problems identifying the smaller tenants, which in normal situations are the ones we_ want to succeed anyway because they are the ones that are at most risk. In conclusion, he stated he would like to see the tower without the major identifications on it. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, recommending to the City Council amendment of Planned Sign Program 96 -118 regarding the gateway tower sign that it incorporate the designation of the center identification sign only, excluding the major tenant identification, and accepting the total square footage. Optional Entry Monument Signs Identified on Rancho Parkway Commissioner Keen stated he doesn't have a problem with the two signs that was proposed in Mr. Mann's letter. However, in his opinion, the flower pots or ums could be eliminated because they do not look appropriate for the center. He commented he doesn't have a problem with the size of the signage and he feels the location is appropriate. Commissioner Parker stated she has, mixed feelings about these two entry monuments. One problem she has is that if they are located on Rancho Parkway, and since Rancho Parkway is the shared access road to the housing complexes, she doesn't think they are really necessary because you can adequately see all of the larger buildings there. Since Mr. Mann has relocated or removed the signs along Rancho Parkway and the signs on the small tenants all face inward, with the exception of Building H, she doesn't have a problem with a small entry monument on those two entries. Commissioner Haney stated he agrees with Commissioner Parker's comments in that once you are here, you will know that it is the Five Cities Center and, secondly, you can identify all of the tenants. There is some merit perhaps on the issue of some small tenant signs there, but the Commission cannot dictate that or specifically restrict that to accomplish that purpose. He commented that this is a shared corridor with the homes on James Way, as well as the other communities to the north and, in his opinion, we are advertising rather than providing identification. Therefore, he doesn't really see the need for these two additional monument signs. With regard to the need to support theme monumentation, Commissioner Haney stated you already know you are in the five cities area and the Five Cities Shopping Center so it seems to be a little redundant to include the Five Cities Center on the monument signs. Commissioner Greene stated he was pleased to see that the third entry monument sign was deleted by the applicant. He noted that the road is a residential street and many people have to drive that every day to get to and from their homes, so he would like to minimize the advertising impact upon them. He further stated he is prepared to approve a Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 8 October 20, 1998 monument sign at the locations identified by the applicant, which would be on the northeast and northwest comers of the intersection of the driveways with Rancho Parkway. He commented he doesn't feel that tenant identification is an attractive feature, and he would prefer to see, if the entry monuments are approved, they carry the Five Cities Center logo only. He proposed that the Commission grant the applicants request to put two entry monuments in the location identified on the diagram, but they be limited to a sign intemally illuminated consistent with the gateway tower that shows only the center and no tenant identification. Chair Lubin stated his position that the optional entry monument signs are appropriate and he would like to see them there. It is his feeling that they are not an "eyesore" to people driving up through there. He noted that this is a residential road but it does go through a commercial district. He further stated he has no problem with tenant identification and he feels that two small signs of 18 square feet per site is very small signage. He commented he would be in favor of those entry signs and would hope they would be used to highlight some of the smaller businesses. Commissioner Haney moved to adopt a recommendation to the City Council to accept the Optional Entry Monument signs located on the northeast and northwest comer of Rancho Parkway as shown on Exhibit "A" of the Planned Sign Program, and that those optional entry monuments only include the center identification sign. Motion seconded by Commissioner Greene, and carried, with Commissioner Keen and Chair Lubin voting "no ". Super Major - Building A Commissioner Haney stated he is supportive of increasing the size above the Code level because of the concessions and assistance that Mr. Mann has given. The Code level calls for a signage not to exceed 70 square feet. Commissioner Haney proposed revising the top line of the Super Major Stores for stores larger than 50,000 square feet, that the Maximum Letter Size be 5 feet in height, and the Maximum Square Footage Per Sign be increased by 50% above our current Code, which is 70 square feet maximum. That would allow a maximum square footage sign here of 105 square feet. In terms of Maximum Length, Commissioner Haney stated he believes it should be proportionate and centered, and the 70% is appropriate. The Maximum Number of Wall Signs is one per frontage and, in terms of the framework that Mr. Hamilton has assembled, Commissioner Haney stated that he would prefer to use the frontage definition that is called out in the existing Sign Code, which is Section 9- 18.030, because that has been previously adopted by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He further stated he believes that the Maximum Amount of Signage that has been identified is OK, with the addition of the words "an amount not to exceed 105 square feet." . He indicated that the Approval Process is acceptable to him on the WarMart sign program as laid out. He stated he does not believe we need Co- Located Service or Product Sign advertising on the buildings. Commissioner Haney stated what he is proposing, in essence, is a 50% increase above the current Code allowance for Super Major signs, and he does have a little bit of flexibility beyond that because of the cooperation that Mr. Mann has shown on the entry sign and some of the other signs. Commissioner Parker stated she has reviewed sizes and lighting of some of the signs in the community, such as K-Mart, Rite -Aid, Cookie Crock, Albertson's, Longs, etc. She Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 9 October 20, 1998 stated that her basic feeling is anything over 140 feet looks like it is screaming and doesn't look necessary. If we are looking at going over the Code of 70 square feet, she stated it is her opinion 220 feet looks enormous. On a large building like Wal*Mart, she could understand the need for a larger sign like 140 feet. In conclusion, Commissioner Parker stated she would be willing to go higher than 105 feet only because these stores are larger. She also agreed with Commissioner Greene that a large part of her decision had to do with the towers, and if you need to identify a store because it is not identified on the tower, then 140 feet would be OK with her. Commissioner Greene stated that, in view of the Commission's finding on the gateway towers issue, he is prepared to make the necessary findings to approve the variance that the applicant is asking for with respect to the wall signs. By raising the square footage from 35 to 50 for the super majors, we are basically talking about two buildings; we are talking about the Lucky Sav-On and the Wal*Mart. The Wal*Mart sign as proposed is 5 feet and the Lucky Sav -On sign as proposed is 6 feet. He further stated, in his opinion, 105 square feet is too low in view of the Commission's decision to eliminate tenant identification on the gateway tower, and he is in favor of moving the maximum limit upward. Therefore, he recommends that the Commission adopt the Super Major Proposed Sign Criteria, as modified by Commissioner Haney, that stores larger than 50,000 square feet, 5 foot sign letter maximums, 140 square feet as recommended by Commissioner Parker. Also, exclusion of secondary signs is appropriate in his opinion. He recommends that the Maximum Amount of Signage be modified to read "amount not to exceed 140 square feet." Commissioner Greene stated he agrees that Co-Located Service and Product Signs are a clutter, however, he is not convinced that the B of A sign should be eliminated from Lucky's and maybe that can be considered as an exception to the Commission's proposal. Commissioner Keen stated that 70 square foot signs in the Code was intended to trigger a variance; it was not put in there as absolute law. It was to trigger a mechanism so that the larger stores with larger frontages could come before the Commission for approval of larger signs. He stated always referring to that 70 square foot and saying no sign is allowed more than 70 square feet, was not the intent of the Code. He stated, in his opinion, the sign should be looked at as the criteria shows; the square footage of the building, the frontage and the scope of the building without making it overwhelming and, in his opinion, the proposed 190 feet for that size building and the frontage and facade they have it on is not out of proportion, especially if we eliminate the entry identification. He would prefer to see the 190 feet as proposed, however, he would go with the 140 square feet. Chair Lubin stated he agrees pretty much with everything that has been said. However, one thing that has been left out is that K -Mart, which is 152 square feet, is 430 linear feet; the Rite -Aid, which is 148 square feet, is 170 linear feet; the Cookie Crock, which is 100 square feet, is 150 linear feet of store frontage. Wal*Mart is proposed at 190 square feet, is 530 linear feet, and it seems that K -Mart and Wal*Mart would be proportionate to their linear feet. He agreed that the square footage should be increased, but where that number came from becomes very subjective. Based on 105, 140, 190, and so the Commission has to come to a consensus as to what is reasonable for a 50,000 plus store with 500 linear feet. Commissioner Haney advised that, given three of the other Commissioners have Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 10 October 20, 1998 indicated they would be willing to support 140 square feet, he would willing to move up from 105 square feet to 140 square feet in order to accomplish a consensus on this particular item. He further stated he is prepared to support Commissioner Greene's proposal on the Bank of America sign. Commissioner Greene suggested considering the B of A sign separately. Chair Lubin briefly reviewed the consensus of the Commission under the heading of Super Major Stores in the Proposed Sign Criteria for the Five Cities Center as follows: Tenant: - Stores larger than 50,000 sq. ft. Max. Letter Size - Five (5) ft. Maximum Sq. Ft. Per Sign - 140 sq. ft. Maximum Length - Same as indicated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Number of Wall Signs - One (1) per frontage, excluding secondary signs as defined in Development Code. Maximum Amount of Signage - Per established sign ordinance 1.5/1 first 100 ft. of frontage; 1/241 per each linear foot thereafter, not to exceed 140 square feet. Approval Process - Same as indicated in Proposed Sign Criteria Co- Located Service (A) and Product Signs (B) - As approved by the Planning Commission. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, sign criteria for Super Major stores for the Five Cities Center was approved as indicated above. Major Stores Commissioner Haney stated there is a difference between the super major and the major stores and he would be prepared to differentiate that in the Maximum Letter Size by reducing the size to 4 feet. Regarding Maximum Square Footage per Sign, Commissioner Haney stated he originally thought this should be at 70 square feet, however, given some of the other Commissioners' comments, he would be willing to be above that if other Commissioners are so minded. Maximum Length, in his opinion, is OK as long as it is proportionate to the sign area; Maximum Number of Wall Signs at 1 per frontage is OK; Maximum Amount of Signage is OK with the addition not to exceed 70 square feet, Approval Process is OK, and no Co- Located Service or Product Signs allowed. Commissioner Greene stated he feels the applicant's request for a variance and his presentation established that there is a need to exceed the Code limitations and, as Commissioner Keen pointed out, those are limitations that invite consideration for a variance. He further stated that, given the fact that Majors D and E are located at the back portion of the property, and Major I is twisted so it doesn't face directly on Rancho Parkway, that larger than 70 square foot signs are appropriate. After further discussion regarding Proposed Sign Criteria for Major Stores, Commissioner Haney reviewed the proposed changes as follows: Tenant - Stores between 44,999 and 24,000 sq. ft. Max. Letter Size - Four (4) ft. with 15% exception for Drops /Caps. Max. Sq. Ft. Per Sign - 115 sq. ft. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 11 October 20, 1998 Maximum Length - As stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Number of Wall Signs - As stated in Proposed Sign Criteria (Major Building I may require further consideration). Maximum Amount of Signage - Per established sign ordinance 1.5/2 first 100 ft of frontage, 1/2 -/1 per each linear foot thereafter not to exceed 115 sq. i Approval Process - As stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Co- Located Service (A) and Product Signs (B) - As stated in Proposed Sign Criteria. On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, sign criteria for Major Stores in the Five Cities Center was approved as indicated above. Minor Stores Commissioner Greene noted that this category would include Building A -2, Building F, Building H, Building J and K. Also if Building I is developed with two tenants, it would also fall under this category. Chair Lubin stated that, in keeping with the concept that we have on the first two lines, that making a clear delineation between Super Major, Major and Minor, he would like to see that continue, and even though they are called " Minor stores, they are still larger than InLine Shops. With reference to maximum square footage, potentially there could be some kind of compromise between 70 and 115 square feet, possibly 85 square feet so there is a clear indication that these are larger shops and not just an InLine store. Commissioner Haney commented that part of it is the great variability we are working with, from 5,000 up to 24,000, he could see the 24,000 easily exceeding the 70 square feet, however, going down to 5,000 we are probably under the other criteria which sets the maximum at 1.5 per linear square foot of frontage and, in his opinion, Chair Lubin's suggestion of 85 square feet would be acceptable. Commissioner Greene inquired if the Hollywood Video sign, which is currently proposed at 70 sq. ft., would now be 85 square feet? Commissioner Haney stated they would be able to increase their sign to 85 square feet. Commissioner Greene noted that the Development Code would prohibit a Hollywood Video sign being placed on the west and south elevations of Building H, but would permit placement of a sign on the north elevation of Building H. Commissioner Greene stated, in respect to the Hollywood Video sign on Building H, Commissioner Keen stated earlier that he was in favor of a second sign on what would be the west elevation and he does not have a problem with that, however, he would like to reserve a consideration for that particular building as a special circumstance. The fact that this particular building is oriented away from the parking entrance and all streets, it might be deserving of some special consideration. After further discussion regarding this category, the following changes were recommended to the Proposed Sign Criteria: Tenant - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Letter Size - Three (3) with 15% exception for Drops /Caps. Maximum Square Ft. Per Sign - 85 Square Feet Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 12 October 20, 1998 Maximum Length - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Number of Wall Signs - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Amount of Signage - 1.5/1 linear ft. of frontage not to exceed 85 sq. ft. (frontage as defined pursuant to the Development Code definition). Approval Process - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Co- Located Service (A) and Product Signs (B) - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria There being no further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, the Proposed Sign Criteria for the Five Cities Center for Minor Stores was approved as indicated above. InLine Shops Commissioner Haney stated, as Mr. Mann indicated earlier, this category is consistent with the current Code and falls within the parameters previously discussed. There being no discussion, on motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Greene, and unanimously carried, the Proposed Sign Criteria for the Five Cities Center regarding InLine Shops was approved as submitted. Freestanding Single Tenant After a brief discussion regarding this category, the following changes were recommended to the Proposed Sign Criteria: Tenant - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Letter Size - Two (2) feet with 15% exception for Drops /Caps Maximum Square Feet Per Sign - 70 sq ft (Note - Freestanding tenants larger than 5,000 sq ft - maximum sign area up to 85 square feet Maximum Length - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Maximum Number of Wall Signs - One (1) per frontage (per current Code definition of "Frontage" Maximum Amount of Signage - Per established sign ordinance 1.5/1 ft. of frontage, 1/2- /1 per each linear foot thereafter not to exceed 70 square feet or 85 square feet depending on the category in which they fall Approval Process - Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria Co- Located Service (A) and Product Signs (B) -Same as stated in Proposed Sign Criteria On motion by Commissioner Haney, seconded by Commissioner Parker, and unanimously carried that the foregoing amendments to the Proposed Sign Criteria for the Five Cities Center for Free Standing Single Tenant category was approved as indicated above. Commissioner Haney moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Proposed Sign Criteria for the Five Cities Center (Amended PSP No. 96 -118) as previously discussed and acted upon by individual motions. Motion seconded by Commissioner Greene, and approved by the following roll call vote; to wit: 1 1 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 13 October 20, 1998 AYES: Commissioners Keen, Parker, Haney .Greene and Lubin NOES: None ABSENT: None Building C - Discussion conceming Bank of America Commissioner Greene stated it was his recommendation to reserve judgement on this issue, even though it has been decided that Co- Located Service and Product signs are prohibited under the Sign Criteria for the center. It is recommended that the City Council give the applicant and his tenant the opportunity to put the Bank of America sign up in the location identified in the diagrams dated October 16, 1998, Page 3, which is C5 on the Sign Summary. The applicant is asking for 32 square feet for the Bank of America sign and, in his opinion, that is a reasonable request and the sign square footage is a reasonable request. Commissioner Keen stated his feeling that if One Hour Photo is a separate entity, then they also should be allowed the same ability to have a sign and place it in the same location as the Bank of America only on the other end. In response to Chair Lubin's question as to how to determine a separate entity, Community Development Director Hamilton advised that they would have to come in and get a separate business license. Commissioner Greene agreed that if One Hour Photo is a separately operated businesses, they too deserve separate identification. He suggested reconsidering that issue at some date in the future. It was noted by Commissioner Haney that the total of the two signs would be 66 square feet added to the building. Commissioner Parker stated she didn't have a problem with the proposal because the Code states in considering the Co- Located signs they are not to be considered in the overall signage of tenant signs. After further discussion, Commissioner Greene moved to recommend to the City Council to permit Lucky Sav -On, the tenant in Major C as identified on the site plan, to include in the location identified as C -5 on Page 3 of the October 16, 1998 Planned Sign Program, the Bank of America sign with a square footage not to exceed 20 square feet. Further that, upon presentation of a separate business license to the Community Development Department, the tenant be permitted to include a One Hour Photo sign on the opposite side of the Lucky Sav -On main sign not to exceed 20 square feet. Motion seconded by Commissioner Haney, and carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Haney, Greene, Keen and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Parker ABSENT: None Commissioner Parker commented her reason for disagreeing is because she feels 20 square feet is too small and, in her opinion, if you are your own tenant inside of a shop, a larger sign would be deserved. Commissioner Keen stated he also has a problem reducing the sign to 20 square feet. In his opinion, because Bank. of America has sb many letters, when the letters are small and strung out and back -lit in red, if you don't know their logo, you are not going to be able to read it from across the parking lot. Commissioner Haney pointed out the Commission is approving general parameters and Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 14 October 20, 1998 are not precluding the applicant or tenant from coming back before the Planning Commission if there is a hardship. Building F Commissioner Greene stated, for the record, that the applicant has specifically deleted from his Planned Sign Program application the Building F south elevation sign. He would like to clarify that the Planning Commission has accepted that delineation as part of the Planned Sign Program and that there will be only one sign on Building F, which is on the north elevation. Building H Commissioner Greene pointed out that this building is a uniquely situated building with the main entrance facing north into the center of the parking lot. If you are driving north into the lot off of Rancho Parkway or driving east or west on Branch Street you wouldn't know where the building is located unless you knew previously that the building was there. He stated his feeling that • the tenant should be entitled to an exception and should be permitted to put a sign on one of the other walls. In an effort to avoid the commercial clutter for people driving up and down Rancho Parkway, he recommended the Commission consider permitting the applicant to erect a sign on the north elevation of Building H and the west elevation, which would be adjacent to the driveway going into the center from Rancho Parkway. He also suggested limiting the secondary sign to 70 square feet, and identify it as being the one that is on the west elevation. He requested that the sign be approved by the Architectural Advisory Committee. A stipulation should be made that there will be no sign erected on the south elevation, which would be the elevation fronting on Rancho Parkway. Commissioner Keen agreed with Commissioner Greene on the third sign. He stated, however, he believes since they compromised on deleting the neon, they were expecting a third sign, so perhaps there should be a discussion on whether it is worth the third sign vs. having a neon sign. Commissioner Greene commented that the approval could stipulate "no neon ", stating it his understanding that neon is prohibited by the Code. Also since there is no architectural detail proposed, a deviation would have to be recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Commissioner Haney stated a third sign would bring the total square footage to 210, which is out of scale both for the size of the tenant and also the utilization. He commented that the 70 feet plus the 85 feet brings the total signage to more than is allowed for the super majors. He acknowledged that there may be some identity needed for Building H, his concern is the amount of signage is excessive and is sending the wrong message. He suggested giving the tenant a choice to choose one larger sign in the parking lot or perhaps two smaller signs; one on the parking lot side and one in the other location identified by Commissioner Greene. After further discussion, Commissioner Greene moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that an additional sign be permitted along the west elevation of Building H, giving the tenant the option of erecting one 85 square foot sign on the north elevation, or two 70 square foot signs; one on the north elevation and one on the west elevation. Further, that neon use as prohibited in the Development Code is not permitted for either of these signs. Also, that proposed signage be submitted to the Architectural Advisory Committee for recommendation to the Community Development Director for approval. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 15 October 20, 1998 Motion seconded by Commissioner Parker, and carried by the following roll call vote; to wit:. AYES: Commissioners Greene, Keen, Parker and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Haney ABSENT: None Secondary Signage on Major Building I Commissioner Haney reviewed that the applicant has proposed a sign on the south facing wall, as well as on the southwest facing wall. He stated, in his opinion, the major signage should be oriented toward the parking lot. His proposal is to restrict the signage to the front of Building I on the south facing wall. That would have the added benefit of attempting to maintain somewhat of a residential corridor here. He further stated he feels that the square footage and the linear footage that is on the front of the south face of Building I would allow for adequate multiple tenants here. Chair Lubin stated he agrees with Commissioner Haney, and he could see no reason for additional signage on the side. He commented this tends to be leaning toward a single tenant, and major identification on the parking lot side seems to be more than sufficient. Commissioner Haney confirmed with Community Development Director Hamilton that, in this case, the Commission is not required to do anything more on this building because the provisions stipulate "One per frontage ". Building M Commissioner Greene pointed out that the applicant has asked that the Commission exempt Building M from any approvals or Planned Sign Program at this time. He stated he believes this is a fair request given the fact that Building M is still influx in terms of its size, shape and facade, etc. The applicant will still be subject to the sign criteria enacted by the Commission, but it was his feeling that Building M should not be addressed by the Planning Commission in any respect at this time. Chair Lubin suggested leaving Building M alone and allow it to fall within the Planned Sign Program, then the developer would have the opportunity to come back with a variance request if it is outside the Planned Sign Program, or if it is within the Planned Sign Program, it would automatically be approved. Commissioner Haney stated the only item he questions is whether the sign on the southwest elevation of Building M, which is proposed as part of the Sign Program, adds an additional 37.5 square feet and is an addition to the prior linear calculations. Chair Lubin commented that all calculations change with the approval of the Planned Sign Program, and that would include Building M as well. Commissioner Haney stated his concem was that most of the signs face the interior on Building M, signs M -7 through M- 12, except for the one sign on the southwest elevation which faces Branch. There was a question about whether that was a restaurant in a multi- tenant building, and what the nature of that sign would be. He stated he believes that was the reason Mr. Mann Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 16 October 20, 1998 withdrew that at this time indicating he would bring back Building M when he had something definite. Chair Lubin stated his interpretation is that the southwest elevation sign is not being approved as part of this Sign Program. Building K Commissioner Greene referred to the sign that has been deleted on the east elevation of Building K, stating it should be made clear that the applicant is not requesting a sign on the east elevation of Building K, reference Page 6 of the most recent plan which shows the word "tenant", facing on to the playing field of St. Patrick's, and that has been deleted. Building L Commissioner Haney reviewed that there was an earlier deletion on Building L, which was on the restaurant and was the north facing sign that the applicant proposed to delete as part of Building L, so that there is now a single sign facing the parking lot. Commissioner Greene commented, it is was understanding also. The sign that would be adjacent to Rancho Parkway, which would be the north side was deleted, and the remaining sign would be the west wall elevation; the parking lot side of Building L. Building G Commissioner Greene also reviewed that the applicant has deleted his request for a sign on the southeast elevation of Building G. By definition, the applicant has been limited to one sign for Building G per tenant, which appears to be an Inline shop at this time, because there are two tenants identified. He noted that on Page 4 of the elevation, the applicant is asking for two signs per tenant, and on Page 8 they are asking for G -1 and G- 2 on the northwest elevation, and G -3 and G-4 on the southwest elevation. He stated he is assuming there are two tenants for that building, therefore, it would fall under the definition of an Inline shop as opposed to a free standing single tenant. Therefore, they would be entitled to two signs; one per tenant per frontage. He further stated since they have requested a northwest elevation and southwest elevation, they would have to exercise an option as to which one to choose. Sign Criteria Program Commissioner Haney stated he felt it would be appropriate, in addition to what Mr. Hamilton has included in his chart, to add some specific language as part of the sign program criteria. The colors that are acceptable to the Commission need to be called out clearly, and specifically deal with the national logo tenants that the applicant is requesting. Also, we want to be careful to make sure that orientation of the signs are horizontal as opposed to be vertical or sideways. In the first paragraph, Commissioner Haney proposed a change in the language that currently reads "The Sign Development Code Ordinance shall be consulted for items not covered in the sign program. He stated his concept would be to read "The Arroyo Grande Development Code Sign Program shall be followed for all requirements except where specifically accepted and approved." He stated he would also like to see the things that the Commission has done this evening clearly noted and spelled out in front of this for the benefit of future Planning Commissions. With regard to the fourth paragraph, the fourth sentence reads ... "if the sign is deemed compliant... ", Commissioner Haney proposed the wording "...lf the sign is within the parameters of the previously approved Sign Program as to size, height, colors, placement and materials, it may be deemed compliant. It was also suggested to add "neon" under Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 17 October 20, 1998 Prohibited Signs. Commissioner Greene referred to the Proposed Findings for Approval of Variance Case No. 98 -210, and suggested the following changes to the language as follows: 1 sentence under Paragraph #1 - delete the words "...or unnecessary hardship..." He recommended that the 2 sentence be deleted in its entirety, and that the 4 sentence be modified to read: "Utilization of signs which are within Code limitations will (i) be difficult to see from the freeway, and (ii) be difficult to see for cars entering the development." The balance of the paragraph deleted. Also modify Paragraph #2, 1 sentence, by deleting the words "exceptional or extraordinary" and adding the word specific instead. Also, delete the 2 sentence and the last sentence entirely. Paragraph #3 be deleted in its entirety. Finding #4 be converted to Finding #3; Finding #5 be converted to Finding 4, and Finding #6 be converted to Finding 5. Commissioner Greene commented, in his judgement, in making these findings, the Commission can justify granting the applicant the variances he has requested and be able to approve signs in excess of the limitations imposed by the Development Code. Community Development Director Hamilton pointed out that findings for variances are structured by State law, unlike many other findings, they are actually specifically called out, including the ones with strict or little interpretation. He stated it would be up to the Commission to decide to add findings or remove the ones in there you do not like. Chair Lubin suggested that Mr. Hamilton review Commissioner Greene's comments to see how they fit and make a recommendation back to the Commission regarding those findings. Color Pallet Color Scheme #1 was selected by the Commission,for the Five Cities Center sign colors. Chair Lubin advised that this item will be continued to the meeting of October 28 at 6:30 p.m. to review the resolutions regarding this matter. Commissioner Haney requested that the citizens group be provided with a copy of the materials on the Five Cities Center. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE 96 -541, REVISED SITE PLAN; APPLICANT: AGRA, LLC /FIVE CITIES CENTER; LOCATION: WEST BRANCH STREET AND RANCHO PARKWAY. There was discussion among the Commissioners whether or not to continue this item due to the lateness of the hour. On motion by Commissioner Keen, seconded by Commissioner Greene, motion carried to continue with this item tonight. A five minute recess was declared by the Chair at 11:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m. with all members present. Chair Lubin opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to make a presentation. Howard Mann, applicant, briefly reviewed the request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -541. He stated it is his understanding that current entitlements he has for Pad L gives him a pad and he would have to come back for architectural approval, agree on the orientation of the building, the signage, the drive -thru, etc. He inquired, by shifting the pad, if any of that changes in any way? In other words, there wouldn't be anything more Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 18 October 20, 1998 he would have to do, since he is already obligated to come back and go through the process. Commissioner Haney inquired if the patio area is part of the 7800 square feet of Building M? Mr. Mann stated that the patio area is extra. Commissioner Haney advised that the Code requirements have incorporated the square footage of the patio dining element. He also inquired about the nature of the cooler. Mr. Mann advised the cooler is located inside. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Mann advised the landscaping would be consistent with what was approved before. Commissioner Haney commented that the approval this evening does not constitute approval of the landscaping plan. He also questioned the calculations regarding the parking spaces. Associate Planner Helen Elder explained that the Development Code allows common parking spaces, which allows a developer to reduce the total number of parking spaces required for a center like this by 30 %, which is what the calculations are showing. For Phase 2, they would be required to have 216 spaces and they are showing 332 spaces. She further advised that the determination to apply the common parking provision was made at the time the overall center was approved and, therefore, the total number of spaces required for the center, based on 360,000 square feet would be 1,100 spaces. She reviewed that discussions with the previous applicant had shown 2,400 spaces and, based on comments from the Planning Commission, they did reduce that because of the discrepancy between 1,100 spaces required by the Development Code and 2,400. Therefore, the spaces were reduced to the present 1,700 spaces that are shown, and the balance of the area was put into landscaping. Commissioner Haney stated he would reserve further comments on that issue because it is not necessary to deal with the question on Buildings L and M. With regard to the Statistical Summary, Commissioner Haney requested that the developer make corrections on the information under "Building Area Summaries" because it is totally off now in terms of square footage. He stated that most of his other comments relate to questions that can be held to a later point in time. In answer to comments regarding the location of the Police Station, Ms. Elder advised that the Police Chief did request to have the station moved over to the Phase 1 side. In answer to Chair Lubin's question regarding Building F, Ms. Elder advised that the footprint of Building F was not changed. She further commented that the site plan was reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee in December of 1997 as part of the changes to the elevations. Commissioner Greene commented that it is obvious it is not necessary to get into issues that are overly broad at this time and we need to focus on changing the location for Building L and the enlargement of Building M, and as a matter of observation, he has no concems regarding that issue. He stated that the proposal to relocate Building L away from the houses down toward the freeway is a sound one. The reduction of size of Buildings D and E is a good idea and he would approve that. Also, the enlargement of Building M appears to be appropriate and the site is large enough to accommodate the size of the building that is being proposed. Commissioner Greene stated he doesn't feel any modifications are necessary in .the language of the resolution to simply approve the applicant's request to relocate Building L Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 19 October 20, 1998 and enlarge Building M, however, he does feel some modifications to the Conditions of Approval is appropriate. He suggested the following modifications be made to Attachment "A ", Conditions of Approval (Revised 10/20/98: Under General Conditions, change the first sentence to read: This Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 96 -541 authorizes modifications only to the approved site plan locations for Buildings L and M as indicated on Exhibit "B° dated September 14, 1998 ". Under General Conditions, correct the date to read: July 9, 1998. Under General Conditions, modify Condition 3, 1 sentence to read: The modification to the site plan for Buildings L and M shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of October 20, 1998 and marked Exhibit "A" or "B" at the discretion of the applicant. Under Public Works Department, add a 2` sentence to Condition 6 to read: Revised site improvement plans pertaining to the locations of Buildings L and M including parking and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. After further discussion the following action was taken: On motion by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Keen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Keen, Greene, Haney and Lubin NOES: Commissioner Parker ABSENT None to make amendments to the conditions of approval for the project and direct staff to return to the Planning Commission on October 28, 1998 with a revised resolution. Planning Commission/Community Development Director Items and Comments. Community Development Director Hamilton stated that tonight a member of the community asked about the issuance of a permit for the Five Cities Sign Center and he was quite disturbed with the tone and the comments that were made. He stated he has been in this business for a long time and has never had someone come to a public meeting and question his integrity, making a comment that basically implied that he was somehow in the pocket of an applicant to the City, which was totally outrageous. Mr. Hamilton further stated that the City did issue a preliminary sign permit for the Five Cities Center; it did not authorize construction of anything and was done in the normal course of procedures that is done on a daily basis. There was nothing improper or immoral that was done in relation to that and a full report was provided to the City Manager. He made a determination because of the controversy surrounding this project that, to keep the record straight and so that everyone understood what was going on, that it would be appropriate to pull that permit back. Mr. Hamilton stated when he found out the permit had been issued, he reviewed the situation and made a determination at that time that there was nothing improper being done and it was the normal administrative procedures that occurs every day for sign permits in any city in California. Mr. Hamilton commented he finds it disturbing that he has been in the City for two months and there are already people in the community assuming that he is somehow in the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Page 20 October 20, 1998 pocket of an applicant and, in his opinion, it is unfortunate for the community that the level of public discourse has basically deteriorated to that point. He stated he hopes that in the future, people in this community can pull themselves together to give public servants who are out here every day trying to do the right thing for them would give staff some credit for that. He stated he hopes the Commission recognizes that as well. He reiterated that no one did anything improper or illegal in regards to the issuance of a sign permit for the Center, and anyone interested in the actual facts related to that action would find that out quickly. Chair Lubin stated, speaking for himself, when he was notified of the issuance of the permit by the City Manager, nothing in his mind could even be construed as anybody doing anything that was morally improper or illegal. He conveyed to staff that he has no qualms about the integrity or honesty of the Planning staff. With regard to the proposed new format for the agenda, Chair Lubin requested that item be postponed to a later date. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Agenda Item III.A, memorandum from Helen Elder, Supplemental Information on the Five Cities Center. 2. State of Califomia, Fair Political Practices Commission Bulletin dated October 1998. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. to a Special Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, October 28 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Pearl L. Phinney, Commission Cle AS TO CONTENT: J amilton, AICP Community Development Director Sandy Lubin; Chai 1 1 1