Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 20, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle Members Absent: Silva Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Latasa requested that item #3 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Approval of Minutes 1. May 6, 2015 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve the Minutes. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved item #1 of the Consent Agenda: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Other Consent Items 2. Consider 120 Surf Way; AR Permit 14-513 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Addition and Exterior Alterations to a Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Jack Sperry; Owner Sonja Vinson; R-1-6-D1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval. Vice Chair Kimzey made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3. Consider 309 Larkin Street; AR Permit 15-080 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Addition and Exterior Alterations to a One- Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Anthony Villafranca; Owner Kathleen M Cardinalli Tr Et Al; R-3-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Removed from Consent; Discussed; Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Anthony Villafranca, applicant, said the house was built in 1904 and not much work has been done to it in the last 70 years. Mr. Villafranca thanked the ARC for reviewing the project and apologized for the dormer, saying it will be removed. He also said the previous roof had four windows and when it was re-done they put the dormer on to mirror that look. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Mr. Villafranca said he does not know when the back shed was added to the house, but it has been there for years and has always contained a kitchen and porch area. Mr. Villafranca said he understands Committee Member Latasa’s concern with the aesthetics of the slope of the shed roof and that he kept the roof the way it is for historical reasons to look different from the rest of the house. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said the shed roof element in the back is not aesthetically pleasing and he would prefer a more natural, hipped roof. Committee Member Dawson said the shed roof may be old enough to qualify as historic, and suggested letting it stay as is. Committee Member Searle said he supports the project as is and that it might be difficult to do new roof in the back because of the height of the eve. Chair Freeman concurred with Committee Member Searle and said she is reminded of the many homes in San Francisco with elaborate facades and flat tar or shed roofs. Committee Member Latasa said he will vote in favor of the project if the Committee feels 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 it is approvable. Vice Chair Kimzey made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 700 Munras Avenue (Casa Munras Hotel and Spa); Appeal 15-116 (Referred from Planning Commission) of an Architectural Review Committee Decision to Deny an Internally Illuminated Light Strip Border for a New Projecting Sign; Appellant Frank Donangelo for Inns of Monterey; Owner Casa Munras, L.P.; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Granted the appeal, based on new information, to allow an illuminated light strip border for a new projecting sign with Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Ms. Hopper also showed the ARC a light cabinet displaying the proposed light strip. Applicant Frank Donangelo, applicant, said he wanted to come back before the ARC to request a lit strip border for the sign instead of an LED border, but was advised an ordinance prevented him from returning for one year. Mr. Donangelo said he appealed the ARC’s decision to the Planning Commission in order to be referred back to the ARC. He also said he is asking for reconsideration of an illuminated strip that is less obtrusive and not pushed out. Mr. Donangelo thanked the ARC for all their efforts. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Ms. Hopper confirmed that the project can be reconsidered by the ARC because new information was presented at the Planning Commission appeal which substantially changed the findings. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Donangelo said the two feet removed from the sign was from both the top and bottom, and that the sign is roughly 8.5 feet from the ground. Mr. Donangelo also said the sign reflects exactly what the ARC asked for previously. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said the applicant did what was asked of him by the ARC and that the proposed lit strip will outline the sign as the applicant wanted. Committee Member Latasa said he supports staff’s recommendation and that the applicant has been very diligent. He also said he still has concerns about having lit signs on both sides of the street. Chair Freeman said the lit strip proposal frames the name on the sign and that she is in full support of the application. Vice Chair Kimzey said he supports the project and that the applicant did what the ARC asked of him. He also said, however, that he wants to note that the overall sign program for this property is far in excess of what is allowed by guidelines. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to grant the appeal, based on new information, to allow an illuminated light strip border for a new projecting sign with Conditions of Approval. Committee Member Abma seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Granted the appeal, based on new information, to allow an illuminated light strip border for a new projecting sign with Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 2222 North Fremont Street; Sign Permit 15-143 for the Installation of One Internally-Illuminated Wall Sign and One Non-Illuminated Wall Sign; Applicant Carl Cook; Owner Patricia S Work Tr Et Al; PC-NF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying the Sign Permit. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant David Randolph, United Sign Systems, thanked staff for working with him on the project and said he wanted to bring the sign proposal before the ARC to reach a compromise at the hearing as opposed to stretching out the approval process. He also said he hopes that a compromise can be made because he is asking for 1/3 less signage than the prior tenant and is not requesting a large, lit monument sign. Mr. Randolph said the proposed size of sign A is appropriate due to the large, 120 foot frontage, and that the previous tenant’s sign was long as well. He also said he disagrees with staff’s finding that sign B is not predictable. Mr. Randolph said having enough corporate identity is very important to success and that the 9th District Court of Appeal ruled neighborhoods cannot tell a 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 company to change their corporate imagery. Mr. Randolph said illumination on the front of the building is important and hoped that not illuminating the side sign would be an acceptable compromise for the ARC. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Randolph said a monument sign was not proposed due to parking concerns, an existing planter on site, and because front and side wall signage would be sufficient. Mr. Randolph also said he does not believe the building is 55 feet from the street per staff’s report, but he thinks it is 40 feet per Google Earth. Ms. Roveri clarified that the 55 feet was measured from the sign to the area past the parking lane, where a driver would be sitting in the car. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Randolph said the Dollar Tree would bring the sign into compliance if required by the ARC, however, they would prefer a bigger sign due to the long frontage and are willing to use 30 inch high letters instead of 36 inches. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Mr. Randolph said halo or external illumination would make the Dollar Tree signage unreadable because the letters are wide, close together, and three-dimensional. He also said spotlights would light the whole building instead of just the face of the letters and that internal illumination is the corporate standard. Mr. Randolph provided the ARC with a photo of the prior tenant’s wall sign and pole sign. Ms. Hopper reviewed the North Fremont Specific Plan, specifically objectives O.6.1, O.6.2, O.6.3 and internal illumination, to provide guidance regarding corporate imagery. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question regarding whether compliance with the guidelines could be achieved, Mr. Randolph said the size of the sign could be brought down, but he would like to keep the internal illumination. Mr. Randolph also said there are many monument signs along N. Fremont Street and lots of corporate imagery, but he is not asking for this. He asked the ARC to consider the fact that the Dollar Tree is not requesting a monument sign, that the frontage is 120 feet, and that if three tenants were present 96 square feet of signage would be allowed. Public Comments Richard Ruccello, Casanova Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association (CONA) president, said the neighborhood is one of very few in Monterey directly adjacent to commercial properties and that the Streetscape Plan is very important, but has not been discussed. He also said and all parties involved in the creation of the Streetscape Plan agreed on the goal of getting away from the commercial look on N. Fremont Street. Mr. Ruccello also said the street is moving in the direction of monument signs at drivers’ eyelevel, and that lit signs may cause glare on the wet pavement. Mr. Ruccello asked the ARC to read the Streetscape Plan and look at the whole picture, dealing with all businesses in an even manner. James Nichols, resident of Dundee Drive, said he is surprised that the applicant does not know there are signage ordinances and would try to bargain with the ARC for more signage than is allowed. He also said there is an ordinance in place and it is important to adhere to the guidelines. Mr. Nichols said an illuminated sign that is out of compliance with the guidelines is not necessary to bring customers to the store. Jennifer Nichols, resident of Dundee Drive, said she and her husband have lived at their residence for 25 years and the love the neighborhood, but the neighborhood has suffered. Ms. Nichols asked the ARC to heavily consider not allowing the sign on the 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 side of the building because it would be the view from her bedroom window and the front sign will be enough to alert customers to the location. Ms. Nichols said the point of the North Fremont Specific Plan (NFSP) is to beautify the area and she asked the ARC to consider whether they would like to look at the Dollar Tree sign each day. She also said signage is only one of the issues the Dollar Tree will bring that will impact the value of homes. Jerry Anderson, on behalf of property owner Patricia Work and her family, said the proposed sign on the front of building does not look out of scale and that 50 square feet would look silly and undersized. Mr. Anderson said the signage placement and area is similar to what was there before, if not smaller, and that the sign is a very simple and clean look. Mike Brassfield, resident and CONA board representative, said the whole idea of the NFSP is to beautify and reduce impact on neighborhood area. He also said Mundo’s Restaurant and other area businesses on N. Fremont Street have abided by the sign ordinance and are still successful. Mr. Brassfield said he is not against Dollar Tree and would like to see all N. Fremont Street businesses occupied, but wants people to abide by the guidelines in place. He suggested that the ARC stay focused on progress and the rules in place, rather than making too many compromises. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said he was part of the North Fremont Streetscape Plan Committee and it was a hard process getting to where we are today. He also said to deviate from the plan would be a mistake, and if one exception is made everyone will want an exception. Committee Member Dawson said he is not in favor of the project as presented and supports staff’s recommendation. Committee Member Abma concurred and said it is a slippery slope granting an approval outside of the guidelines and that it is difficult to measure one project against another for justification. She also said the proposal consists of elements that the NFSP aims to phase out and that she supports denial of the project. Committee Member Latasa agreed with Committee Members Dawson and Abma and said the existing shiny, corporate signs that the applicant mentioned is what the City is trying to get rid of to change the character of the street. Committee Member Searle said he agrees with staff’s recommendation and that there are not any exceptional circumstances in this case. Vice Chair Kimzey said he would deny the application based only on the size of the signs since they are twice what is allowed, but he disagrees with most of the other comments of the ARC. Vice Chair Kimzey said the compromise for 67 square feet of sign is reasonable. He also said the issue of the logo is very serious and that signage has a major impact on the success of businesses. Vice Chair Kimzey said he objects to the size of the sign on the side of the building, but does not necessarily agree with the idea of the sign not being predictable. He also said the illuminated sign is okay because it is within the guidelines if it is not internally lit. Vice Chair Kimzey said the size needs to be decreased, but he would support the sign on the side of the building and illumination of the front sign if it was done to satisfy the guidelines. He also said the issue of the logo is the most serious and that the company should be allowed to use their logo. Chair Freeman said the point is well taken by those who spoke during public comment. She also said when a plan is created to renovate an area the guidelines are well thought 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 out and should be adhered to. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to deny the sign permit. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. Vice Chair Kimzey said he agrees with the comments about consistency of applying the rules, but that the last project at 700 Munras Avenue had very few rules applied to it. Vice Chair Kimzey said the issue of applying guidelines should be taken seriously. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Adopted a Resolution denying the Sign Permit: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Consider 2600 Sand Dunes Drive (Unscripted Hotels); Sign Permit Application 15- 161 for One Internally-Illuminated Pole Sign; Applicant Dylan Rivera for SignWorks; Owner SWVP Monterey LLC; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying the Sign Permit for one internally illuminated pole sign. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Dylan Rivera, SignWorks, showed the ARC photos of the area surrounding the sign, the city boundaries, and the visibility of the sign from different directions. Mr. Rivera said the existing sign is oriented towards Sand Dunes Drive, located at the hotel’s entrance to direct patrons, and mainly visible from Seaside. Mr. Rivera requested special consideration due to the sign’s unique location, visibility issues, and the cost of having to remove and replace the sign. He also asked for a one time sign face change to ensure fair and equitable treatment, and said he now proposes an opaque face with only the text illuminated as opposed to a translucent face, which will reduce overall sign illumination. Mr. Rivera showed the ARC a rendering of what an opaque face would look like at night, as opposed to a translucent sign face. In response to Committee Member Abma’s question, Ms. Hopper said the General Plan policy regarding freeway-oriented signs still applies, even if the sign is primarily visible from a city other than Monterey. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Hopper said the sign could be approved in a location that is incidentally visible from Highway 1, but primarily oriented towards Sand Dunes Drive. In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Ms. Hopper said the face of the sign has not been changed since before the implementation of the Sign Guidelines. Public Comments None. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said he does not have a problem with the illumination, but due to the height of the sign and because is a pole sign, he would support denial of the project. He also said there are other options for effective placement of signage. Committee Member Latasa said landscaping and tree trimming could work in tandem with the sign placement. Chair Freeman said with the sign’s current location there is no chance for approval and that the project represents opportunity for exploring other sign locations and lowering the height. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if a continuance of the project would be better than denial. Chair Freeman asked the applicant if he would prefer a continuance or denial. The applicant said he prefers that the ARC deny the project. Committee Member Searle made a motion to adopt a Resolution denying the Sign Permit for one internally illuminated pole sign. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. Committee Member Latasa said he supports motion, but he finds the illuminated sign with an opaque face to be an attractive sign. Chair Freeman concurred. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution denying the Sign Permit for one internally illuminated pole sign: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None RECESS 5:30 p.m. RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle Members Absent: Silva Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 8  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 7. Consider 1 Portola Plaza (Monterey Conference Center); AR Permit 15-172 for Final Architectural Review for Monterey Conference Center Renovation; Property Owners/Applicants City of Monterey; Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA (Continued from May 6, 2015 Meeting) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center with added Special Condition of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Chair Freeman gave an overview of the ARC’s prior discussion on Final Architectural Review and the items that the ARC directed the design team to further explore. Ms. Hopper introduced the design team from Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM). Michael Duncan, SOM, said he will address the five issues specified by the ARC at their prior meeting: street trees, the east elevation with the screen wall, event signage, the stone material, and the Pacific Street parapet. Regarding the Sycamore trees, Mr. Duncan said the City is looking at Hawthorne trees as an alternative, and asked that the tree conversation be held off until Portola Plaza is discussed. Regarding the east elevation and the screen wall, Mr. Duncan said warmer stones and a warmer metal color have been selected. Mr. Duncan also said they chose not to extend the stone the full length of the building to open up the front area and provide a view outside from the mezzanine. Mr. Duncan said a full length bench made of the same material as the building has been added to ground the building and provide seating. In regards to temporary banner integration, Mr. Duncan said the proposal is big enough to be impactful but is to the scale of the plaza. He also said the proposal will keep the building clean and contemporary. Mr. Duncan said the transparency of the banners can be controlled and that seasonal or decorative banners could also be displayed. Regarding stone selection for the building, Mr. Duncan said a good deal of time was spent looking for stone and Santa Maria stone was chosen because it is dense and can be used on buildings without chipping. He also said the stone will consist of horizontal coursing, saw cut horizontal edges with snap break vertical edges, and pieces 12’ by 2” and 24” by 4” in size. Mr. Duncan said the horizontal raking corresponds to the wood screens and the metal horizontal elements. In regards to the Pacific Street parapet, Mr. Duncan said a band has been added to provide relief to the metal face and break up the mass. He also said only the upper portion of the parapet will be visible from the sidewalk below. In response to Chair Freeman’s question regarding scheduling, Sam Philips of Ausonio, Inc. said a preliminary abatement project will take place in June, the project will go to bid in August, a contractor will be selected by the beginning of November, construction will start November 16, 2015, and the bottom floor and the plaza area will be completed by August 2016, with the rest of the building completed by the end of 2016. Public Comments None. 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Committee Member Comments Chair Freeman said she is pleased that all concerns previously raised by the ARC were addressed. Committee Member Dawson said he likes the new stone. He also said he likes the bench and how it grounds the area. Committee Member Dawson said he likes what has been done with the rear side of the building with the clerestory windows. Committee Member Latasa concurred and said the applicant addressed everything that the ARC requested. He also said he liked the original stone wall element, but that the applicant did good job explaining the rational for the metal screens. Committee Member Latasa said the signage was very well considered and will be successful. He also said Santa Maria stone is a perfect choice, being a denser stone. Committee Member Latasa said the parapet along the back is successful and that he would love to see the bridge removed. Committee Member Latasa said he is unsure about is the metal color, and suggested granting final Architectural Review, deferring approval of the metal screen color for another look or a warmer palette. Committee Member Searle said he is pleased with the project. He also said he is disappointed that the bench is not a planter which would soften the harsh pavement between the plaza and the building. Committee Member Searle said the signage solution is strong and the Pacific Street elevation is satisfactory. Committee Member Kimzey said he echoes the compliments offered by the ARC and likes the new stone selection because it is warms up the building and has depth and texture. He also said he likes that the blank wall of the parapet is now broken up. Vice Chair Kimzey said he has concerns with the metal panels not adding warmth to the building and how they will weather. He also said he does not agree with the overall aesthetic of the building and that it does not meet the goals of the Downtown Specific Plan so he will vote against the project for the same reasons he stated at the previous meeting. Committee Member Abma said she likes the elegance and simplicity of the solutions brought before the ARC. She also said the bench grounds the building and activates the corner area. Committee Member Abma said she likes the simplicity of added parapet element and the choice of color and depth in the arrangement of stone. Chair Freeman said she has attended many conferences where signage is a forgotten element, so purposely creating a space for signage will have a good effect in the future. Committee Member Searle made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center. Committee Member Abma seconded the motion. Committee Member Latasa asked if all members of the ARC are satisfied with the metal colors. Ms. Hopper said a Condition of Approval could be added that prior to installation, the final color of the metal screening at the front of the building will be reviewed and approved by the ARC. Mr. Duncan said the color review should be done outside in the sun. Committee Member Dawson suggested that the color review be incorporated into a field trip. Committee Member Searle amended his motion to adopt a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center with added 10  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Special Condition of Approval as follows: 2. That prior to installation, the applicant shall submit final color of the screen panels on the Portola Plaza elevation to the ARC for review and approval. Committee Member Abma seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center with added Special Condition of Approval: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 8. Planning Office Update  Update received  Ms. Hopper said the City Council heard brief presentation about amendments to Citywide Sign Guidelines on May 19, 2015 and directed staff to take a look at the Sign Guidelines for areas that could be amended to allow for additional Administrative Approval.  Ms. Hopper also said preliminary review for the Portola Plaza will be heard at the next ARC meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:53 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 11