Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retail Restaurant Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Valencia Building sign program discussed; staff advises smaller wall sign or larger projecting sign for visibility
Summary
Design Review Subcommittee reviewed a proposed master sign program (No. 25‑2294) for the Valencia building at El Camino Real and Avenida Valencia. Staff and the applicant discussed wall‑mounted versus projecting (blade) signs, sizing for legibility and next steps toward the Planning Commission and permitting timeline.
The Design Review Subcommittee on Aug. 27 reviewed a proposed master sign program (Discretionary Sign Permit No. 25‑2294) for the Valencia building at El Camino Real and Avenida Valencia and provided guidance to staff and the applicant on preferred sign type, size and placement ahead of a Planning Commission hearing.
The applicant, represented by owner Sanjay and his team, presented three sign locations in the proposed master program: two facing El Camino Real and one facing West Avenida Valencia. Sanjay said the restaurant tenant (a chef‑driven concept led by chef Sharbel Hayek) preferred a wall‑mounted sign to prominently display the restaurant’s logo and the chef’s name.
Christopher Wright, senior planner, explained that the project sits inside the architectural overlay district and that staff suggested either moving an existing proposed wall sign lower on the tower to fit available white space or providing a projecting (blade) sign at the corner to improve visibility from both directions. Wright noted the code’s frontage‑based allowances can permit large projecting signs, but staff emphasized visual fit with the tower and portal elements over maximum allowed area.
A sign fabricator and a sign‑company representative joined the discussion and said projecting (blade) signs generally provide good bidirectional visibility and can be fabricated to include the applicant’s logo and brand elements. One industry speaker said, “I favor blade signs. I’m biased,” while clarifying the client’s preference ultimately determines the final design.
Committee members and staff advised the applicant to consider legibility from the intersection and the El Camino Real approach, noting the existing palm tree could partially obstruct a wall sign if sited above the arch. Staff recommended scaled mockups showing 14‑inch lettering (present proposal) and a larger alternative (for example, 18 inches) so the committee and staff could compare legibility at relevant sight lines.
On timing, staff and the applicant discussed an expedited schedule: the applicant aims for a soft opening in September and full opening in October. Wright described the public‑notice and hearing timeline: to appear at the Planning Commission hearing in mid‑September the applicant must meet submittal deadlines for noticing and packet preparation; if approved, there is a 10‑day appeal period and subsequent administrative processing before permits can be issued in October.
The subcommittee did not take a formal vote on the sign program at the meeting. Members said they were generally supportive of designs that fit the building scale and recommended the applicant and staff work together to finalize sign elevations and a preferred wall or projecting option for the Planning Commission packet.
