Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2012-03-07 (2)
To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting March 7,201') Agenda Item: Subject: 1599 Tiburon Boulevard; Appeals of Sign Permit Approval for the Installation of Signs for a Drug Store and Pharmacy; Zelinsky Properties, LLC, Owner; Josh Eisenhut /Armstrong Development Properties, Inc., Applicants/Appellants; Appellants Against the CVS Beach Road Sign, Appellants; File #51110; Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058- 171-89 and a portion of 058-171-88 Reviewed By: 1 PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Numbers File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Property Owner: Applicants/Appellants: Appellants: Flood Zone: BACKGROUND 1599 Tiburon Boulevard 058-171-89 and a portion of 058-171-88 51110 1.63 acres Neighborhood Commercial/Affordable Housing Overlay NC/AHO (Neighborhood Commercial/Affordable Housing Overlay) Zelinsky Properties, LLC Josh Eisenhut/Armstrong Development Properties, Inc. Appellants Against the CVS Beach Road Sign X (Building; outside 500-year flood event); AE (parking lot; subject to 100-year flood) On January 19, 2012, the Design Review Board approved a sign permit application to install signage for the soon-to-be-opened drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The applicant, Josh Eisenhut of Armstrong Development Properties, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") and a group of Tiburon and Belvedere residents (collectively known as Appellants Against the CVS Beach Road Sign and hereinafter referred to as "appellants") have filed separate timely appeals of the Board's decision to the Town Council. These appeals are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. TOWN of TiBURaN PAGE 1 OF 13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests a sign permit for the installation of signage for the new CVS/pharmacy located at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The Design Review Board reviewed seven (7) different proposals submitted by the applicant, each of which is described in detail below. These proposals included a variety of signs, including two signs to be located on the building (one facing Tiburon Boulevard, the other facing Beach Road); a third sign under the canopy of the drive-through pharmacy (facing Tiburon Boulevard), and a fourth series of signs on the windows facing Tiburon Boulevard. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The original sign permit application filed with the Town on November 21, 2011, proposed the following signs: • A 61.38 square foot, indirectly-illuminated (halo-lit) sign above the store entrance; • A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive-through pharmacy; and • Three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. The Design Review Board first reviewed the application on December 15, 2011 (see minutes and staff report packet attached as Exhibits 3 & 4). At that time, staff determined that the requested sign permit required a Minor Exception in accordance with Section 16A.720 (c) of the Tiburon Sign Ordinance, as the proposed total sign area involved the transfer of sign area from one establishment frontage to another. The subject building has three frontages and all of the sign area was proposed to be installed along the frontage facing Tiburon Boulevard. The Design Review Board received numerous objections from local residents regarding the size, design and illumination of the proposed signs. The Board indicated that the aluminum materials for the main store sign were inconsistent with the character of Downtown Tiburon and suggested that the applicant explore a wooden sign. Similarly, the Board asked the applicant to consider replacing the indirect, red halo-lit illumination with a different indirect lighting system. The Board also encouraged the applicant to submit two different sign proposals, one which would require a Minor Exception and one that would not require an exception. The Design Review Board continued the application to the January 19, 2012 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the proposed signage. On January 11, 2012, the applicant submitted revised plans for the proposed signs. The revised project design included four options, described as follows: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 14 Option I A 64.5 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance facing Tiburon Boulevard. The sign would consist of 30 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored aluminum background that would follow the contours of the sign letters. The sign would be illuminated using red colored lights behind the letters, defined as halo-lit illumination, wherein light would not pass through the letters but would "wrap around" them indirectly. Halo-lighting is a permitted type of lighting under the Town's sign ordinance, and can be seen on signs at Guaymas Restaurant and Union Bank. Option II A 72.2 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance. The sign would consist of 30 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored, rectangular aluminum background. The sign would be illuminated using four gooseneck lighting fixtures shining onto the face of the sign. The lighting fixtures would be mounted on the building, above the sign. Option III A 64.5 square foot, halo-lit sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance facing Tiburon Boulevard. The sign would consist of 30 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored aluminum background that would follow the contours of the sign letters. The sign would utilize halo-lit illumination using red colored lights behind the letters. An additional sign would be mounted on the Beach Road side of the building. This 37.1 square foot sign would consist of 20 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy," mounted directly onto the wall of the building. The sign would utilize halo-lit illumination using red colored lights behind the letters. Option IV A 72.2 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance facing Tiburon Boulevard. The sign would consist of 24 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored, rectangular aluminum background. The sign would be illuminated using four gooseneck lighting fixtures shining onto the face of the sign. An additional sign would be mounted on the Beach Road side of the building. This 37.1 square foot sign would consist of 20 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy," mounted directly onto the wall of the building. The sign would be illuminated using four gooseneck lighting fixtures shining onto the face of the sign. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 14 All four options also included the following signs: A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive-through phannacy. The sign would consist of red acrylic letters with the word "Drive-thru" on a white rectangular background. • Three 4.53 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. Each sign would consist of red vinyl film mounted on the window with the words "CVS/pharmacy." These additional signs were identical to those previously reviewed by the Design Review Board, except that the window signs were reduced in size from 4.60 square feet to 4.53 square feet each. The total sign area requested for the four options ranged from 81.28 square feet for Option I to 126.08 square feet for Option IV, each of which would be greater than the 78.75 square foot maximum sign area for the CVS establishment. A Minor Exception or a Major Exception would be required for approval of any of these four options. At the January 19, 2012 meeting (Exhibits 5 & 6), the applicants distributed revised plans showing two more options for proposed signage: Option V A 30.48 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance. The sign would consist of 20 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored aluminum background that would follow the contours of the sign letters. The sign would utilize halo-lit illumination using white colored lights behind the letters. An additional sign would be mounted on the Beach Road side of the building. This 31 square foot sign would consist of 25 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy," mounted onto a clear plastic panel and attached to the wall of the building. The sign would utilize halo-lit illumination using white colored lights behind the letters. A 2.02 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive-through pharmacy. The sign would consist of red acrylic letters with the word "Drive-thru" on a white rectangular background. Option VI The plans for Option VI were identical to those of Option V, except that the halo-lit illumination proposed for the signs facing Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road would be replaced with gooseneck lighting fixtures. TOWN OF TISURON PAGE 4 OF 14 Both Options V & VI complied with the maximum sign area for a building of this size and did not require approval of an Exception. These options did not include the window signs proposed in Options I-IV. At the January 19, 2012 meeting, several area residents again expressed concerns about the proposed signage. Several residents noted that several CVS stores in other cities did not have red lettered signs. The applicant agreed to reduce the size of the Beach Road sign in Options V & VI from 31 square feet to 30.48 square feet to match the size of the sign facing Tiburon Boulevard. The Design Review Board preferred the Option V sign design, but determined that the color, materials and lighting of the signs would be inconsistent with the character of Downtown Tiburon. The Board voted to approve Option V with the following modifications: • All signs shall utilize wood materials. • All signs shall utilize white letters on a rectangular, Equestrian Grey background. • Indirect sign illumination shall utilize gooseneck lighting fixtures. • The sign facing Beach Road shall be reduced in size to 30.48 square feet. • The drive-through sign shall not be illuminated. The Design Review Board voted 4-0 to conditionally approve the project as amended. On January 30, 2012, the applicants and appellants filed separate timely appeals of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL The applicant's appeal is based on two grounds: Ground #1: The red color of the proposed signs is part of the CVS/pharmacy trademark and therefore should not be changed to white as required by the Design Review Board. Staff Response; The applicant argues that under the federal Lanham Act, the Town cannot require it to change the color of its sign. The applicant states that the color red is part of the registered trademark for CVS/pharmacy and is "an important component of [their] corporate identity." During the Design Review Board's review of the subject sign permit application, local residents noted that CVS/pharmacy has white colored signs at their store in Greenbrae and gold colored signs at a store in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The applicant acknowledges that CVS/pharmacy has altered its sign colors in several instances, but only where pre-existing requirements were in place that required alternate sign colors. Nevertheless, the Design Review Board concluded if CVS had modified its color scheme elsewhere, it was reasonable to require a different sign color at the Tiburon location. The Board was unaware of the Lanham Act provisions at the time it approved the application. TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 5 OF 14 The Lanham Act (Title 15, Chapter 22 of the United States Code, § 1121(b)) reads as follows: "No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark, or require that additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names that may be associated with or incorporated into the registered mark be displayed in the mark in a manner differing from the display of such additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names contemplated by the registered mark as exhibited in the certificate of registration issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office." The Lanham Act was intended to protect business entities' investment in developing and promoting their trademarks. However, the Act does not entirely preempt local sign regulations. At least one case has held that although a city cannot condition approval on modification of a registered trademark, it can deny permit approval altogether. Accordingly, the Town can consider denying the application if denial is otherwise warranted by the Town's Sign Ordinance (codified as Chapter 16A of the Municipal Code). The Sign Ordinance does not expressly regulate sign colors nor does it preclude the use of the color red. Absent specific regulations, the Ordinance may not support a denial of the application based on the proposed red and tan color scheme. The Sign Ordinance does include general principles that could plausibly be used to argue against the proposed colors. Section 16A.620 (General Design Principles) includes language which "encourages" applicants to use the specified design principles: (a) Sign design. Should be physically compatible with the building/surroundings. (b) Sign colors and materials. Should be: (1) Physically compatible with the building/surroundings. (2) Metal/reflective materials to be matte or non-glare surface. '(3) High quality and durable materials. (d) Downtown Area Signs. The following additional principles of design are encouraged for signs located in Downtown Tiburon, and are derived from the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, at pages 49-55, which may be referenced on the Town of Tiburon website for further guidance. (1) Signs should physically complement the architecture of the building or storefront. (2) Signs should preserve the transparency of the storefront. As noted by the Design Review Board, the Woodlands Market across the street from the CVS site is grey, with white letters forming its sign against the background of the building. The area is TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 14 generally dominated by more muted colors.' This finding could provide a basis for denial of the sign application based on physical incompatibility. However, the Council should be aware that the "compatibility" requirement is not a strong foundation for denial. A sign permit denial is more defensible when it is based on very specific regulatory criteria. A number of residents opposing the project have argued that the applicant should be willing to abandon its proposed color scheme because it has done so at other locations in the country. Although the other signs do not legally affect the outcome of the applicant's appeal, staff has investigated other cited other sign locations and found the following: • Bon Air Center in Larkspur: According to the center's management, CVS was informed by the management that red letters would not read well against the building fascia, which is reddish in color (see Exhibit 9). The private property owner found the red letters unacceptable for that reason and directed CVS to use a different color. The Lanham Act restrictions apply to government agencies, not to private property owners, who have broad latitude as to whom they choose to lease their property and as to the appearance of proposed changes to the building (including signage) by any potential leaseholder. Many commercial properties have sign programs or other private restrictions or policies that could require alternate color signs or materials from those normally used by a tenant absent such restrictions. In any event, the private property owner, and not the City of Larkspur, was the source of the non-red lettering found at the Bon Air CVS location. • DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C.: At a Design Review Board hearing, a resident stated that wooden shingle signs only were used for a CVS store on Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. Staffs research on Google indicates that the CVS store on DuPont Circle has red lettering against a dark background (see Exhibit 10), and the letters appear to be made of either metal or plastic. In conducting this research, staff found other Washington, D.C. CVS stores that have white, black or red signs. • Chatham, Massachusetts: Pictures of a CVS store at this location with gold lettering on a black background were presented and discussed at the January 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. Plans showing these signs are included as attachments to the Applicant's appeal (Exhibit 1). These signs were approved by the Town of Chatham Historic Business District Commission and were required to have gold lettering to comply with the Town's historic district regulations, not due to any requirement of the Chatham sign ordinance. Ground #2: The proposed aluminum sign materials would be indiscernible from and more durable than the wooden sign materials required by the Design Review Board. Staff Response: The Design Review Board found that a wooden sign would be more compatible with the character of Downtown Tiburon and the architecture of the CVS building. At both Design Review Board meetings, the applicant indicated a preference to use aluminum letters for the proposed sign due to potential maintenance problems with a wooden sign. The issue of durability was questioned by a local merchant at the January 19, 2012 meeting, who stated that he 1 See, for example, the Town Hall and Fire Station, which are grey, and the Lodge and Maritime Plaza Building, which are shades of brown, tan and beige. The Boardwalk Shopping Center, which is the location of the Woodlands Market, is almost entirely grey. TOWN OF TIBURON RAGE 7 OF 14 had had no such maintenance issues with a wooden sign for his business for 25 years. One Design Review Boardmember likened the potential maintenance concern to a request to install artificial landscaping instead of live vegetation to reduce maintenance, stating that the Town would be unlikely to permit artificial plantings for a commercial business. Section 16A.620 (b[3]) of the Sign Ordinance states that signs should use "high quality and durable materials." The Design Review Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that a wooden sign would not be a "high quality and durable" sign. The Town has previously made similar decisions to require wooden signage instead of other materials. In 1999, Blockbuster Video requested a sign permit (File #599003) to install signs for its video store located in the Cove Shopping Center. In addition to a small hanging wood sign by the front door and a sign inserted into the multi-tenant pylon sign for the shopping center, Blockbuster requested approval to replace the wooden wall sign at the end of the building with non-illuminated blue and gold plastic lettering. On April 1, 1999, the Design Review Board approved the first two signs, but approved a blue and gold colored wooden wall sign in the shape of the Blockbuster logo. Staff notes that these actions took place under a prior Tiburon sign ordinance that provided considerably more discretion to decision-makers regarding signs than is currently supported by mainstream legal opinion. The Sign Ordinance does not specifically preclude the use of aluminum in signs. In considering this portion of the applicant's appeal, the Council should consider whether the proposed aluminum material would render the signs incompatible with the building and/or surroundings, keeping in mind the concerns about general compatibility standards discussed above. BASIS FOR THE APPELLANTS' APPEAL There are five (5) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The Design Review Board was misinformed regarding its discretion in reviewing the proposed signage facing Beach Road. Staff Response: At both the December 15, 2011 and January 19, 2012 meetings, staff advised the Design Review Board that the Board had some discretion in terms of color, the type of lighting, and materials, but they did not have discretion over size of the sign if the sign did not require an exception. Staff did not address the Board's authority to disallow a sign on the Beach Road frontage of the building. Section 16A.110 of the Sign Ordinance lists the purposes of the ordinance, including the following: (b) To protect the public and private investment in buildings, improvements and open spaces. (c) To preserve and improve the visual appearance and aesthetics of the Town as a place to live and work and as a desirable destination for visitors and tourists. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 14 (h) To promote and implement the goals, policies and programs of the Tiburon General Plan. Goal LU-D of the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan is "to ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and arrangement, serve to preserve, protect and enhance the small-town residential image of the community and the village-like character of its Downtown commercial area." The appellants contend that these portions of the Sign Ordinance and General Plan give the Design Review Board the authority to deny a sign on the Beach Road frontage of the CVS building. This argument relies on a presumption that general policy statements override the specific provisions of the Sign Ordinance. In fact, under well-established rules of statutory construction, a more specific regulation will prevail over a general one. Section 16A.720 (d) states that "a maximum of two (2) permanent signs shall be permitted per frontage for each establishment." This specific regulation, which allows up to two signs on each building frontage, therefore prevails over the more general regulations describing the purposes of the Sign Ordinance and a goal of the General Plan. Section 16A.515 (a) states that "if a Sign permit application complies with all requirements of this Chapter and with all other applicable laws, rules and regulations, the permit shall be approved and issued within the required time limits set forth in Section 16A.535." Staff is of the opinion that the Design Review Board did not have the authority to disallow a sign facing the Beach Road frontage that otherwise complies with all the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Ground #2: The sign facing Beach Road is inconsistent with the Downtown Tiburon - Design Handbook, which prohibits repetitive signage. Staff Response: The Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook includes guidelines for signage in Downtown Tiburon. The handbook lists under marquee signs (described as "overhead-mounted hanging signs"), metal and custom plastic materials, and indirect lighting as appropriate for stores .along Tiburon, Boulevard. The handbook states that "repetitive signage' is "inappropriate and, in almost all cases, prohibited in Downtown Tiburon." Staff raised concerns about the repetitiveness of the three window signs proposed as part of the original application, as the requested signs would have resulted in three identical signs in the same row of windows facing Tiburon Boulevard. However, the Tiburon Sign Ordinance clearly allows signage on each frontage of a building that has more than one frontage facing a public street or public parking lot. Identical signs on each of two building frontages are not "repetitive" simply due to their similarity in design. The Sign Ordinance does not require otherwise allowable signs on multiple building frontages to have different designs. Further, the Sign Ordinance does not require compliance with the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. As noted above, Chapter 16A.515 (a) states that "if a Sign permit application complies with all requirements of this Chapter and with all other applicable laws, rules and regulations, the permit shall be approved and issued within the required time limits set forth in Section 16A-535." Section 16A.620 (d) states that "the following additional principles of design are encouraged [emphasis added] for signs located in Downtown Tiburon, and are derived from TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 14 the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, at pages 49-55, which may be referenced on the Town of Tiburon website for further guidance: (1) physically complement the architecture of the building or storefront; and (2) preserve the transparency of the storefront." The Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook consists of goals, basic design concepts, and design guidelines. It states that "the text and graphics are intended to be both informative and suggestive". However, staff concludes that neither the contents of the Handbook, nor the principles contained in Section 16A.620 (d), are legal requirements necessary to establish compliance with the sign ordinance. In adopting the Handbook in 2002, the Town Council Resolution read as follows: "......the Town Council hereby authorizes the Town Staff and Town Officials to use the Handbook in the review of development applications and as a general guide for public and private improvements in Downtown Tiburon". Ground #3: The approval of the Beach Road sign was a violation of the Brown Act, as the public did not have an opportunity to object to the proposed sign. Staff Response: On January 18, 2012, the day before the January 19 Design Review Board meeting, the applicant's sign consultant sent an e-mail to Town staff with the Option V sign plans, noting that the applicant would be presenting these plans at the meeting for review by the Board. Shortly before the Board meeting, an applicant's representative informed Town staff that the applicant was being delayed by inclement weather and might not arrive with copies of the revised plans in time for the meeting. Staff printed out copies of the e-mailed Option V plans for distribution to the Design Review Board and gave a copy to Marcia McGovern, the appellants' representative. The applicant arrived shortly thereafter with copies of the Option V and Option VI plans. The Option V plans distributed by the applicant were slightly different than those that had been e- mailed to the Town. The size of the proposed sign facing Beach Road was increased from 23.2 square feet to 31 square feet and the size of the drive-through pharmacy sign was reduced from 3.19 square feet to 2.02 square feet. The applicant only brought enough copies for the Design Review Board and staff, without additional copies available to hand out to the public. The applicant presented the revised plans to the Design Review Board, which discussed the revisions at the meeting. Staff also verbally noted the revised sign areas of the Option V plans at the meeting. It is not unusual for an applicant to present revised plans at a meeting, which plans had not been previously reviewed by staff or the public, particularly when such plans contain revisions intended to address previous direction from the Design Review Board. In this case, the Option V & VI plans were in direct response to the Board's direction to the applicant at the December 15, 2011 meeting to submit two different sign proposals, one which would require a Minor Exception and one that would not require any exception. The Option I-IV plans submitted prior to the meeting all required a Minor or Major Exception, and the Option V & VI plans did not require any exception. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 14 The appellants' Brown Act complaint appears to arise from the Town's failure to provide Ms. McGovern with the final version of Options V and VI on the afternoon of January 19th. However, Town staff did not have these documents at that time; the applicant distributed the final versions at the beginning of that meeting. Under these circumstances, the Brown Act does not require the Town to make the documents available until after the meeting. Accordingly, the Board's review of these plans at the meeting did not violate the Brown Act. Ground #4: The submission of the revised Beach Road sign design at the January 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting created confusion and did not give the public an opportunity to object to its design. Staff Response: The Board approved the Beach Road sign reduced from 31 to 30.48 square feet. The approved sign differed very little from the sign proposed for that location in previously published plans. The differences may be summarized as follows: • The approved Beach Road sign is smaller than the 37.1 square-foot sign proposed by Options III and IV that the Town distributed before the meeting. • The approved Beach Road sign is larger than the 23.2 square-foot sign proposed by the earlier draft Option V that the Town distributed before the meeting. • The approved Beach Road sign included a clear plastic panel mounted between the aluminum letters and the wall of the building. This panel was also included in the draft Option V plans distributed before the meeting. The Option III & IV plans were available for review by the public prior to the meeting. With the exception of the reduced sign size and the clear plastic panel, the Option V & VI plans were identical to those in the Option III & IV plans. The changes to Option V between the afternoon prior to the meeting and the meeting itself may have caused some momentary confusion. However, there is no reason to believe that the minor differences impaired either the public or the .Board's ability, to evaluate the different proposals. Option V & VI plans were thoroughly presented to the Board, both orally and graphically, before the Board took public testimony on the item, affording the public the opportunity to comment upon both the larger, previously submitted plans and the nearly identical, smaller revised plans. Ground #5: The staff report presented at the January 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting recommended denial of any Beach Road sign and was not replaced by a revised staff report at the meeting. Staff Response: The lack of an updated staff report is not a basis for reversing the Design Review Board's decision. Had the Board believed that further staff analysis was necessary, it could have requested a revised report. It did not. See Section 54957.5(c) of the California Government Code. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 14 The January 19, 2012 staff report reviewed the Option I-IV plans that were submitted prior to the meeting. With respect to staff's recommendation, the critical feature of these options was that all four would have required approval of a sign exception. Section 16A.520 (c) of the Sign Ordinance states that "the following findings shall be made in rendering a decision on a request for Exception: The Exception is necessary to overcome special or unusual site conditions such as exceptional building setbacks, and lack of or limited visibility due to orientation, shape or width of the property and/or building improvements; 2. The Exception is appropriate in that it would allow signage that would be in harmony and scale with the building and site improvements, and would be physically compatible with other conforming signs in the immediate vicinity; and 3. The Exception would permit an improvement that would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on-site or off-site." The staff report concluded that these findings could not be made for Options I-IV as submitted, but could be made to justify additional signage for the drive-through pharmacy. As a result, staff recommended that a Minor Exception be granted for the following revised signage: • Revised primary sign to a total size no greater than 32.5 square feet; • Indirect sign illumination with either white LEDs or gooseneck lighting fixtures; • Non-illuminated drive-through sign as proposed; • No window signage or signage facing Beach Road; and • A requirement that the illuminated sign be turned off after business hours. The Option V & VI plans did not require a sign exception and therefore the findings contained in -Section 16A.520 (c) did not have to be made to approve either option. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE There has been voluminous correspondence regarding this application received by the Design Review Board during its review, and additional correspondence addressed to the Town Council, subsequent to the appeals being filed. Much of the correspondence has been in the form of petitions signed by interested persons through a website. Due to the volume of this correspondence, copies of individual petitions have not been reproduced for each Councilmember, but are on file with the Planning Division for review. The petition text, list of names of persons submitting it, and their individual comments (where made) are included in a summary attached as Exhibit 11 Additionally the property owner has submitted a letter with an attached list of the names of (primarily) Tiburon peninsula residents supporting the CVS corporate red logo (see Exhibit 12). Other non-petition correspondence regarding the appeals is attached as Exhibits 13 through 43. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 12 OF 14 CONCLUSION In reaching its decision on this project, the Design Review Board found that the applicant's proposed signs would be inconsistent with the general design principles for signs contained in the Sign Ordinance. However, the Board was unaware of the Lanham Act or the legal nuances of specific regulation generally prevailing over general ones for purposes of statutory construction. The Board determined that wooden signs with alternate colors would be more in keeping with other buildings in the vicinity and more compatible with the architecture of the CVS building. The Design Review Board conducted an appropriate review of the proposed sign facing Beach Road and correctly determined that the Sign Ordinance allows signage along that building frontage and of the size requested, and that no exceptions are required. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeals in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 8), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate using a "hearing de novo" approach and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intentions regarding the appeals. 3) Direct Staff to return with appropriate resolutions addressing each appeal for consideration at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of appeal from applicants 2. Notice of appeal from neighboring residents 3. Design Review Board staff report dated December 15, 2011 4. Minutes of the December 15, 2011 Design Review Board meeting 5. Design Review Board staff report dated January 19, 2012 6. Minutes of the January 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 7. Notice of Action and adopted conditions of approval 8. Appeal procedures 9. Photograph of CVS store in Bon Aire Shopping Center 10. Photographs of CVS stores in Washington, D.C. 11. Appeal petition signature and comment list, dated February 14, 2012 12. Letter and petition list from Laleh Zelinsky, dated February 27, 2012 13. Letter from Therese Hennessy, dated February 8, 2012 14. Letter from Gary Lucas, dated February 22, 2012 15. Letter from Matthew Schmidt, dated February 23, 2012 16. Letter from Deirdre McCrohan, dated February 23, 2012 17. Letter from John Sanford, dated February 24, 2012 18. Letter from Carol Kurland, dated February 25, 2012 19. Letter from Dellie and Doug Woodring, dated February 25, 2012 20. Letter from Mimi Clarke, dated February 25, 2012 21. Letter from Simin Meykadeh, dated February 25, 2012 22. Letter from Bob Finch, dated February 25, 2012 23. Letter from Jay Andrews, dated February 25, 2012 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 13 OF 14 24. Letter from Marcia McGovern, dated February 25, 2012 25. Letter from Marti Andrews, dated February 26, 2012 26. Letter from John Eder, dated February 28, 2012 27. Letter from Geri Thayer, dated February 28, 2012 28. Letter from Barbara Meislin, dated February 28, 2012 29. Letter from Barbara Patten, dated February 28, 2012 30. Letter from Chuck Reite, dated February 28, 2012 31. Letter from Julie Coffin, dated February 29, 2012 32. Letter from Maureen Filmer, dated February 29, 2012 33. Letter from Azita Mujica-Beavers, dated February 29, 2012 34. Letter from Daniel Goldberg, dated February 29, 2012 35. Letter from Carol Berg, date February 29, 2012 36. Letter from Loy Price, dated February 29, 2012 37. Letter from Georgene Usher, dated February 29, 2012 38. Letter from Shelby Allen, dated February 29, 2012 39. Letter from Samantha Walravens, dated February 29, 2012 40. Letter from Raymond Kong, dated February 29, 2012 41. Letter from Peter Engler, dated February 29, 2012 42. Letter from Bill Downs, dated February 29, 2012 43. Letter from Susan Brautovich, dated February 29, 2012 44. Approved plans Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager Ann Danforth, Town Attorney S: IAdministrationlTown CouncillStaff Reports120121Mai-ch 7 Draftsl1599 Tiburon Boulevard appeals report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 14 OF 14 M1 ~W ,iAU4 3 0 2012 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN OF TIB URON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94910 Phone 413-435-7373 i 617uronxii,us APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary) Name: v u ,~J t 1 y-Y~' l i,' - L( a' . Mailing Address: 7 6 C K /i,' ! ~l L'' ~ - C;1 c t s Z _v ' 3 r "11 . Telephone: 1 i (Work) (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): ACTION BEING APPEALED _..t Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed:- Z- Name of Applicant: Type of Application or Decision: j s. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) STAFF CASE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: Fee Paid: o /-'30•.20 IL Date Appeal Filed: Receipt No. TO0s mate of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant S.'Adurinislrationt orms,N'orice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Reused 4larch 1010 TO-ul V GL";- EXI-:IBIT N0. R ( o F- 1,3 I: ARMSTRONG' DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES. INC. January 30, 2012 Town of Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 1375 Exposition Blvd Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95815 916-643-9610 Phone 916-643-9613 Fax Re: Appeal of Design Review Board's January 19, 2012 approval of the Sign Permit to install signs for a Drug Store and Pharmacy at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. Dear Town Council: Armstrong Development Properties, Inc. ("Armstrong") is the developer for the proposed CVS/pharmacy located at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard in the Town of Tiburon (the "Town"). The purpose of this letter is to set forth the grounds for Armstrong's appeal of the Design Review Board's January 19, 2012 approval of the Sign Permit to install exterior signs for the proposed CVS/pharmacy. Armstrong was pleased that the Design Review Board approved the Sign Permit for the proposed CVS/pharmacy. However, Armstrong objects to two conditions of approval set forth in File #5110: regarding the color and type of material used for the signs. First, Armstrong would like to amend the second condition of approval requiring the sign to utilize white letters on a rectangular, Equestrian Grey background. Attached hereto as Exhibit A. is CVS/pharmacy's registered trademark number 2048916 which was later amended in May 2010. As described in this document, the color red is part of the CVS/pharmacy trademark. The Lanham (Trademark) Ac((tixle 15, chapter 22 of the United States Code) states that: "No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark, or require that additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names that may be associated with or incorporated into the registered mark be displayed in the mark in a manner differing from the display of such additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names contemplated by the registered mark as exhibited in the certificate of registration issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. " 15 U. S. C. §1121(b). The use of the color red is an important component of CVS/pharmacy's corporate identity. While there have been a few occasions where CVS/pharmacy has utilized a different color for their exterior An affiliate of the Armstrong Group of Companies EXHIBIT NO., ' Pt Z Cir t 3 signage, in these rare instances, there are specific requirements already set forth to which CVS/pharmacy must comply. Such was the case for the CVS/pharmacy location in Massachusetts more accurately described in Exhibit B attached hereto. In this example, CVS/pharmacy was required to match the color scheme of an existing Grocery Store within the same Shopping Center. Since no similar restrictions are currently in place for the project located at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard; Armstrong requests that the conditions of approval be amended ~to allow for the sign to utilize CVS/pharmacy's standard red letters on a rectangular, Minced Onion background. Second, Armstrong would like to amend the second condition of approval listed in File #51110, which requires the signs to utilize wood materials. During the January 19, 2012 Design Review Board hearing, photos of a CVS/pharmacy location in Massachusetts were used as an example of where CVS/pharmacy has previously used wood materials for their exterior signs. This store location was considered a precedent and led to the Design Review Board's decision to require a wood sign for the store located at 1599 Tiburon Blvd. As described in Exhibit B attached hereto, the sign in question is in fact made of aluminum which further validates Armstrong's statement during the Design Review Board hearing that the type of material used for the signs would be indiscernible. The use of aluminum materials is an industry standard for commercial exterior signs. Aluminum is a much more durable material and using such materials for the signs for the 1599 Tiburon Blvd. location will ensure that the signs will remain in good condition for many years to come. As described in Exhibit C attached hereto; commercial signs in the town of Tiburon vary in type, size, color, materials, and illumination. The distinctions between the various signs differ based upon, among other factors, a business's identity and the size of the use. Armstrong is not seeking approval of any exterior signage beyond what is allowed for the project based on the size of the 1599 Tiburon Blvd. location and the Town's Signage Ordinance. Furthermore, there are other national tenants within the Town, including Wells Fargo and Chase banks, which were previously allowed to utilize a color scheme consistent with their corporate identity. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this appeal. Enclosed, please find the $500.00 filing fee deposit for the appeal. We respectfully request that the Town Council revise the two conditions of approval as outlined in this letter. In the meantime, feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, ARMSTRONG DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES, INC. Josh Eisenhut Attachments: Exhibit A, CVS/pharmacy Registered Trademark Number 2048916 Exhibit B, Signage Specifications for CVS/pharmacy #1878 - 637 Main Street in Chatham, Massachusetts Exhibit . Photos of Existing Signs in Tiburon, California EXHIBIT NO. 1 P, 3 or l3 Exhibit A UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 www.uspto.gov REGISTRATION NO: 2048916 SERIAL NO: 75/065553 MAILING DATE: 05/10/2007 REGISTRATION DATE: 04/01/1997 MARK: CVS/PHARMACY REGISTRATION OWNER CVS PHARMACY, INC. CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: John E. Ottaviani Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP P.O. Box 130 F.D.R Station New York NY 10150 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1058(a)(3) THE COMBINED AFFIDAVIT AND RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED REGISTRATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 8 OF THE TRADEMARK ACT, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1058. ACCORDINGLY, THE SECTION 8 AFFIDAVIT IS ACCEPTED. NOTICE OF RENEWAL 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1059(a) CHE COMBINED AFFIDAVIT AND' RENEWAL APPLICATION FILED FOR THE ABOVE-IDENTIFIED REGISTRATION MEETS THE tEQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9 OF THE TRADEMARK ACT, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1059. ►CCORDINGLY, THE REGISTRATION IS RENEWED. 'HE REGISTRATION WILL REMAIN IN FORCE FOR CLASS(ES): 42. .OGAN, TAMMY ARALEGAL SPECIALIST OST-REGISTRATION DIVISION 71-272-9500 PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING THIS REGISTRATION ORIGINAL ti ~t1-1IBIT NO. R OF i 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING A FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION I) SECTION 8: AFFIDAVIT OF CONTINUED USE The registration shall remain in force for 10 years, except that the registration shall be canceled for failure to file an Affidavit of Continued Use under Section 8 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1058, at the end of each successive 10-year period following the date of registration. Failure to file the Section 8 Affidavit will result in the cancellation of the registration. H) SECTION 9: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL The registration shall remain in force for 10 years, subject to the provisions of Section 8, except that the registration shall expire for failure to file an Application for Renewal under Section 9 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1059, at the end of each successive 10-year period following the date of registration. Failure to file the Application for Renewal will result in the expiration of the registration. NO FURTHER NOTICE OR REMINDER OF THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE SENT TO THE REGISTRANT BY THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE REGISTRANT CONTACT THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PERIODS SHOWN ABOVE TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND FEES. EXHIBIT N0. I- S yr 13 Int. Cl.: 42 Prior U.S. Cls.: 100 and 101 Reg. No. 2,048,916 United States Patent and Trademark Office Registered Apr, 1, 1997 SERVICE MARK PRINCIPAL REGISTER CVS/phamacy CVS, H.C., INC. (RHODE ISLAND CORPORA- 'T'ION) ONE CVS DRIVE WOONSOCKET, RI 02895 FOR: RETAIL STORE SERVICES FOR PRE- SCRIPTION DRUGS, HEALTHCARE AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS, IN CLASS 42 (U.S. CLS. 100 AND 101). FIRST USE 040-1983; IN COMMERCE 0-0-1983. OWNER OF U.S. RECS. NOS. 919,941,'-1,906,987 AND OTHERS. NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "PHARMACY", APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN. THE DRAWING IS LINED FOR. THE COLOR RED. SER. NO. 75-065,553, FILED 2-29-1996. RICHARD KIM, EXAMINING ATTORNEY EXHIBIT NO. 0 F I a %gs ~f 00 Hill Exhibit B Z c a is + +•'1. oli, ,yd 1. LI v: +iZ ~CA CL z ~ ~ a 4 Iw rI 1 i I I - f--- 401 s Q I~C a 1'L 3 WI w p JFa x = JN ip Z { C9 to 1 x r*: ° ~ I Q jS I z R J lz W X 3 T= Z J a J I a e- J V+ J+ z W . 'n i z O F- O 6 Z l - O - F O ~ O F O I Z Q { I i c t a ~ 1 Z a ? I J w j i 4 + ~ x W I I ~ ~ ~ I i lid + ~ t .LL J E O 06- z r~r, YES ~m r A 4. i. 00 z~, w d ANNE ROAD op co m G i ` 1 I 441, moo 1r ~ • • L rl) 3 r~ o z C 41 ~ T Ol ~ ~ r0 ~ B C ~ UJ QT O ~ o • V C C m N O m~ r C O CL cc iQ,i L 4p11 t~ c0 3 m : a C~ T r O ~U' ca U L1 C co T gg O r > C C ~t>! m ci m.~ 3. 3a° 3s >comrr ~ z°F~mS~~.= ¢c3a~~0y8 u`I Q L p m OO C co c Q cc O o n j O O a p O 'p O U a U C G ~c 0`1 C7 d Q B n co U • - ~ y~~ U ~ ~y ,ZJ ~ j Y = °~v O a7f _ p CJ r c Z ~ O ca L cm , C' (D 03 <D Z _r -Lj ~ a X~ I m o 2 -Y- U B~ x m a z G C-1 13- E 0 -ca z 6 r t m 2 C a N o s d.8 E m T D N 4E~ 55 W X r 'p U E 0 O¢ m O g x c -a O (p b .zC Q CD g ' Tma, x©o ~OVUa~~ ° W~ QCL.9 0 w~ a~ m o 0 m ~ 5f6Bcmip~E E yo4mp;Dm-0 co U 0 ay` 9 EUE o ~~:g C7~. D 'a o o 0 ~q - ca c~ o' r~ ma~~~ $ E- W N E ~ W ?U a CP g ~ N Cal M m C 2 E O ot! X O V Q O 06 cy :x - a o ZS 3pmV~ a~a ~a 3a mAm~o ~ m co AS- a U , Q > ~ > B r~ °a 20 a~ ' Zee W E~ ~ 0 ~ O O) C C Z Q U N .6 m 2 aB C ~ Em 0 o co 2 u~S _ CO ~ z o Y U cr*~ ;s q ~ C7 o m ° a u u uu 'O v Ht, O) Hz- C4 > D co 2 M N C O r = - a) 2 _ ell Q W i0 C p c 3 Cn c UJ 40~ U Q W O z o- yrH F~ 4-,iu vm ~ ffi y1: g aS J • A . 43 C- _ ~ ~ cli j~Rp ONZL ~ ~ U ~ c 35 N (7CCS O L «1 p~p ~ ~ N ~ $ ~ y 71m r ya m -pm N m E o ~i~ _ Q~aJS w CU {3u s~Dq Q d7, pN~ ttl T Z~ $ '8 O ¢~O ` fp~}tcyi C Z O. W SJ 17 Q O o N N _ f0 Z5 'C Tm Q O) T i4 Z;) C? ~ 7 V "O ~z 7 0 iQ J N c m U Q Lo L_ f.: C CO C n C C. L cy L c b rD O U f6u © 0 y Q E c U d 3 3 m m _ m Q c 2$ o p Si (O c D j N c~ ~ L U Z = / d hh ~q y m~ ~J C.J 0 U CD Q s c~ YD $ 0 z O Y m m s lUq m ti7 CU f)7 o 3 c O [JL o~ Yd m CD0 $ L U U zZ U A ~ E m m ~aa U a~Ed~o cL E°pipm ~ O U E c ? U 7 - E 6 O Z O Y 0 C' Z tp f7 LLN N /V) 10 1v.J H a~ Q N 4-J G z L W y m -i _ O N 3a _ yy mC7 p~~ U QS y ~ yC Omm ¢ 7 CC Q ' - ~ O Z N C Q1££.~ tDC7 9 m O C 7 .L'1 ~_O+ ryL} ~ z ffi a m y C~ U Dip ~2 E AMA 20- cu Z_amj~'.a'o ca N C U_ y .5 m n ~i N 1I J 11 m r C N L U a P P co 06 e. 0 19 w Q~ o Z. oY ca 7b c 0 3 ~ Z ~ m ~ o ~ -o N m m a Q a~~ o - ~ m u m co C j o E r -c - ~ r ~ r 0 V3 ,Q z z M m> Exhibit C EXHIBIT NO. p, t2 0F- i3 EXHIBIT NO. 1 P< < 3 6 r ,3 E C E ~ V E I ~~N 3 0 2012 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 www. ci. tiburan. ca. us APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary) Name: 4 P 0_C_ l 1 a V1 T ~I hsT the I a Mailing Address: PC) I.J U x b T TelePhone Q C - " S(Work) d Sim -L cat L. ~ , (Home) ~ ~ 3 f ~ ~ ~ / FAX and/or e-mail (optional): J"n CL- r `Y~ c C Q ' ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: _T I L~ tit Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: \3 a I'1 ~_k c, 2 Name of Applicant: j U S h 1 V1 _E / Type of Application or Decision: r m % GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: 30 - zv /Z- Fee Paid:' 6 Receipt No. v aJ (0S Date Appeal Filed: w Date of Appeal Hearing: 36 ~2i+~►-c.,.~ NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-appl' nt S: lAdministrationlFormstNotice ofAppeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2 EXHIBIT N0.2, ~ /-JO -2diz January 30, 2012 Town of Tiburon City Council c/o Town Clerk 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 This letter constitutes written notice of appeal of the Tiburon Design Review Board's decision on January 19, 2012, File No. 51110, regarding the approval of signage on Beach Road, as requested by Armstrong Development Properties, Inc. (CVS). There are several reasons that this appeal is justified, and the DRB's decision to allow an illuminated sign on Beach Road should be reversed. The first basis is that the Planning Manager, Dan Watrous, misinformed the DRB that it did not have any discretion in deciding whether or not a sign on Beach Road could be approved and that it had no discretion to reduce the sign size or disallow illumination. Approximately 29 minutes into the meeting, Mr. Watrous stated: "The Board has some discretion in terms of color, the type of lighting, and the type of materials. In terms of the size and whether a sign is lighted or not, if it does not require an exception, the Board has no discretion to make it smaller, necessarily than what the maximum is." 46 Minutes into the meeting, Mr. Watrous stated: "And again, the, the Board does not have the authority, if it complies with the maxinftum sign requirements to make it, to require it, to be smaller." This is not true. It is well within the DRB's discretion to refuse to approve a sign application based upon the size of a sign, require a smaller sized sign, or to disallow illumination. Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is clear that the purposes of the chapter include ensuring that the location, size, type and number of signs allowed within the Town of Tiburon comply with clearly stated purposes. (16A.I 10) These purposes include: (b) To protect the public and private investment in buildings, improvements and open spaces; (c) To preserve and improve the visual appearance and aesthetics of the town as a place to live and work and as a desirable destination for visitors and tourists; and (h) To promote and implement the goals, policies and programs of the Tiburon general plan. NO. 2- Town of Tiburon January 30, 2012 Page 2 The Tiburon General Plan's Land Use Goals include preserving the character of the Tiburon peninsula through control of the type and location of development. (Paragraph 2.4, LU- C) An additional goal includes ensuring that all land uses ...serve to preserve, protect and enhance the smalltown residential image of the community and the village-like character of its Downtown commercial area. (Paragraph 2.4, LU-D) The DRB has the authority to regulate signage to ensure that these goals are met. The landmark approval of repetitive signing on the South and East faces of the bare unscreened expanses of the 18,000 sq. fl. building at 1599 Tiburon Blvd. is in direct contradiction to these goals and objectives. The character of Tiburon will be forever changed by the large, unscreened, illuminated, and repetitive signing. The DRB's first step in evaluating a sign application is to determine whether the signage being requested complies with the above principals. If the DRB believes it does not, then the sign permit, even if the sign meets all other criteria in Chapter 16, can be denied. From the transcript of the hearing, it is clear that several DRB members were not in support of the Beach Road sign. Several statements made by board members follow. "The thing that I, the side on Beach Road, I'm, I don't know about that. That, uh, would have to be really small, I think, for me to get behind it." Board Member Emberson, 31 minutes into the meeting. "I think the discussion that was presented this evening was extremely relevant. The last gentlemen that spoke touched on something that I identified with right away. I don't think you need a sign at all ...You have advertised so well with this that everyone in town knows where CVS is now...I still think its missed the whole point and the whole nature of the community..." Board Member Johnson, 32 minutes into the meeting. "I don't know why it has to be so big on the side. Beach Road, its just, I mean, it seems like a big sign to have on that side of the building where if you are going to see the building, you see it straight on and you know that it is a CVS Pharmacy. I don't think they need anything that is the same size on the side of the building, but that's just my thought is that it's awfully big..." Board Member Emberson, 51 minutes into the meeting. "Size, I think is somewhat a no-brainer in that I agree with staff conclusion about limitation of the size... " Board Member Chong, 34 minutes into the meeting. This comment, to be taken in context, refers to the staff report which included on page 5 of 8 a staff recommendation that there be "No window signage or signage facing Beach Road." Therefore, the concerned residents and community members firmly believed that the Beach Road sign was not being supported by the Planning Manager. F X" IBIT NO. 2 Town of Tiburon January 30, 2012 Page 3 Additionally, 16A.620, regarding general design principals, requires additional consideration be given to signs in the Downtown area. These principals are derived from the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, at pages 49-55. (16A.620) This section of the handbook makes it clear that Downtown Tiburon deserves signs that are "classic" in nature...." Moreover, as stated on page 54 of the Handbook, repetitive signing is inappropriate and, in almost all cases, prohibited in Downtown Tiburon. The sign on Beach Road is clearly repetitive in nature. The Beach Road sign should not be allowed per the guidelines. More importantly, the community does not want the sign on Beach Road. As was stated during the meeting, everyone in Tiburon already knows that it is a CVS, and it is the community who will make up the vast majority of CVS's customer base (90+%): "I have lived here close to 50 years and I am amazed CVS is asking and we are even talking about a sign of that size. Um, let's ask ourselves, who's going to visit or shop at CVS? All of the locals of Belvedere and Tiburon. Well they know where it is. (laughter) They drive by every day. The tourists? The tourists will not go there. They are not coming to town to buy drugs or greeting cards, no, they are going down on Main St. So who is going to be attracted by the signs? Only the locals." Resident Kaus Meinberg, 23 minutes into the meeting. "I tend to agree with, um, I wouldn't say every single person who is going to shop at the store is going to be a Tiburon resident, which isn't necessarily true, I think it is a very, very large majority, I mean probably somewhere in the 80's or 90's [percent], ...by and large, we're all going to know where it is." Board Member Chong, 34 minutes into the meeting. The vast majority of people who will be approaching the Beach Road sign are those residents who live in Old Tiburon and Lyford's Cove. Bill Lukens, authorized by the Board of Directors of Lycotha, informed the DRB that its 200 households are the most affected by what is happening here and that they formally adopt and support he position taken by Ms. Marcia McGovern. (19 minutes into the meeting). They do not want a sign on Beach Road. Lastly, approval of the Beach Road sign must be reconsidered due to the manner in which the revised plan was distributed at the January 19, 2012, DRB meeting. New versions of options V and VI were provided to the Board minutes before the meeting began. Mr. Watrous, provided the head of the Tiburon and Belvedere Coalition with outdated options which were no longer being looked at by the Board. The community members were not given any time to see the new design despite requesting everything that had been given to the Board. This may have constituted a violation of the Brown Act, Section 54957.5(b)(1) and (2). '--V HIBIT NO. Town of Tiburon January 30, 2012 Page 4 Revised options V and VI, were given to the Board during the hearing itself. This means that the same documents should have been made available for public inspection at the same time it was distributed to the members of the DRB. This did not occur. The untimely delivery of CVS's revised option V, cast confusion as to the sign size. At one point, Mr. Watrous says, "I will just note that's 23.2 sq. ft, which is less than the 30.5 sq. ff. max that would be allowed on that Beach Road side." Later in the hearing, Mr. Watrous states that "the Beach Road sign [will be] reduced to 30.48 sq. ft..." The transcript also clearly indicates confusion as to which version of which options were being presented ...none of which were actually the same options that were part of the staff report given to the DRB by Mr. Watrous and none of which were provided to the public. Had the community members been provided with the revised Options, as they should have been under the Brown Act, there would have been considerable more objection at the hearing against the Beach Road sign. Moreover, the public would not have relied on the published staff report (page 5) which indicated that "No window signage or signage facing Beach Road" was being supported. The confusion by the community is supported by the transcript of the meeting, including comments by community member Geoff Goddard to the DRB 21 minutes into the meeting. Mr. Goddard commented: "I see that in the package you were given you have staff recommendations at page 5. Those recommendations go quite a long way I think to meeting peoples' needs and desires..." This reference to page 5 is the same page on which staff had recommended "No window signage or signage facing Beach Road." Mr. Goddard and the other community members did not realize that the DRB was no longer looking at the options which these staff recommendations were based on. CONCLUSION This appeal, requesting an overturning of the decision to allow a sign on Beach Road is clearly supported by: (1) The Board being misinformed that it did not have the authority to deny a sign pennit, require a smaller sign, or disallow illumination if its members did not believe that such a sign fit into the community aesthetics, conform with the General Plan, conform with the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, or conformed with the purposes of the sign code itself; mill NO. ~ Town of Tiburon January 30, 2012 Page 5 (2) The sign permit's violation of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, which prohibits repetitive signage; (3) Possible violations of the Brown Act, which did not give the public an opportunity to object to what was before the DRB; (4) The confusion created by the last minute submission of more "Options" for consideration, which also denied the public an opportunity to object; (5) The confusion created by the staff report which recommended no signs on Beach Road, which was not replaced by any revised staff report at the meeting, but which seemed to have been abandoned by Mr. Watrous. There is strong opposition to the sign on Beach Road by the community and Tiburon's residents. This appeal is now necessary so that the City Council can answer the call of its residents and revoke the sign permit or require a modification to the sign permit which removes the repetitive illuminated sign on Beach Road. Thank you for your attention to this matter. This appeal is made by the Appellants against the CVS Beach Rd. Sign. Marti Andrews, Tiburon Mary Callender, Tiburon Jeanette Carr, Tiburon Barbara Christopher, Tiburon Thomas Christopher, Tiburon Phillipa Criswell, Tiburon Chris Denniston, Tiburon Derek Denniston, Tiburon Cynthia DeRouen, Tiburon Karen Eaton, Belvedere Carol Ellison, Tiburon Karen Ferguson, Tiburon Marlene Halden, Tiburon Holly Hudson, Tiburon Jennifer Hull, Belvedere Richard Hyde, Belvedere Karen Hyde, Belvedere Krista Jacobson, Tiburon Ken James, Tiburon Nicole Klopukh, Tiburon Carol Kurland, Belvedere Paula Leroy, Tiburon Bill Leroy, Tiburon Phil Maslin, Tiburon Marcia McGovern, Belvedere Klaus Meinberg, Tiburon EXHIBIT PTO. Town of Tiburon January 30, 2012 Page 6 Linda Meinberg, Tiburon Candace Nordstrom, Tiburon Raj Pherwani, Belvedere Greg Taylor, Belvedere Yda Wills, Tiburon Susan Moore, Tiburon Surita Pherwani, Belvedere Wendy Soule, Tiburon Ann Welch, Tiburon Barry Wilson, Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. 2- To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting December 15, 2011 Agenda Item: 2 Subject: 1599 Tiburon Boulevard; File #51110 Sign Permit for the Installation of Signs for a Drug Store and Pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCELS: FILE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD 058-171-88 & 89 51110 ZELINSKY PROPERTIES LLC ARMSTRONG DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES, INC. 1.63 ACRES NC/AHO (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/ AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL/AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY X (BUILDING; OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOOD EVENT) AE (PARKING LOT; SUBJECT TO 100-YEAR FLOOD) NOVEMBER 22, 2011 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15311. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting approval of a sign permit for the installation of signage for the soon- to-be-opened drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The proposal includes the following signs: • A 61.38 square foot, indirectly-illuminated under marquee sign above the store entrance. The sign would consist of red plastic letters with the words TOWN OF TIBURON i-A HI i> 1 T NO. PAGE 1 OF 5 43 Pa,cmhc r 15, 2011 "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a white rectangular background. The sign would utilize individual letters, with LED halo-lit illumination. • A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive-through pharmacy. The sign would consist of red acrylic letters with the word "Drive-thru" on a white rectangular background. • Three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. Each sign would consist of red vinyl film mounted on the window with the words "CVS/pharmacy." ANALYSIS The 78.37 square feet of proposed sign area is less than the 78.75 square foot maximum sign area for a building of this size. The sign area calculations and subject application do not include signs for the unknown future retail tenant that would occupy the southwest corner of the building. The previous freestanding monument sign at the corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road has been removed and no such replacement sign is requested as part of this application. The Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook includes guidelines for signage in Downtown Tiburon. The handbook lists under marquee signs (described as "overhead-mounted hanging signs"), metal and custom plastic materials, and indirect lighting as appropriate for stores along Tiburon Boulevard. The handbook states that "repetitive signage' is "inappropriate and, in almost all cases, prohibited in Downtown Tiburon." The Board should consider whether the three proposed window signs with the same design would be considered to be "repetitive signage" and should be replaced with a single sign or be eliminated. This handbook also states that "signs for businesses in Downtown Tiburon should reflect the following characteristics: • Creative use of substantial, time-honored materials • Classic designs and imagery • Elegant finishes and touches • Artistic expression responsive to Tiburon's man-made and natural environments." The indirect halo-style illumination for the main store sign would consist of LED lights on the backs of the sign letters that would shine to the rear onto the rectangular background and reflect around the outside edges of the sign letters. Such lighting is generally understated in nature and is less noticeable than indirect floor lighting mounted in front or above a sign. Signs with similar illumination have been recently approved in Downtown Tiburon for Union Bank and Guaymas Restaurant. The red and white colors of the proposed signs are consistent with the corporate identification for CVS/pharmacy. The indirect lighting for the main sign would not cause light to shine through the red letters, minimizing the brightness of the color for the lettering. However, the white rectangular background upon which the LED lights would shine may be inappropriately bright when illuminated. This white background color may also be inconsistent with the characteristics TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 5 ,~.~o. RAT No. 3 a X1..1 ?L ~ 1J hrsi n EZc~ ic~~ 111d Mca i n PCCC111hC1-15, 2011 described in the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook as "elegant finishes and touches." The Design Review Board may wish to consider changing the color of the background to match the colors of the siding or trim of the building to create a more understated appearance in keeping with the guidelines in the handbook. However, staff does not recommend a similar change to the white background of the drive- through pharmacy sign. Without any lighting on that sign, a more muted background color would make this sign less visible and reduce the sign's effectiveness in identifying the location of the drive-through pharmacy and providing necessary direction for drive-through customers. The illustrations accompanying the subject application indicate a series of graphics to be installed behind the proposed window signs. These graphics would be mounted on an interior wall several feet behind the window, to the rear of the checkout counters. The wall-mounted graphics are intended to include photo montages from Tiburon's past and would therefore not be classified as signs. However, staff is concerned about the potential to replace these graphics with other store signage in the future. As part of the building permits for the drug store renovation currently underway staff has disallowed installation of any lighting in this area to reduce the potential for placement of additional signage on these walls. Staff recommends a condition of approval prohibiting any signage at this location in the future. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, three letters have been received regarding this application from Belvedere residents objecting to the illumination and/or design of the proposed signs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board: 1. Review this project with respect to the Sign Ordinance and the Downtown Design Handbook; 2. Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15311; 3. Approve the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Jeanette Carr, dated December 2, 2011 4. Letter from Marcia McGovern, dated December 4, 2011 5. Letter from Carol Kurland, dated December 5, 2011 6. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT PAGE 3 OF 5 EXHIBIT NO. 3 the view. He thought that they now can make made all four of the findings necessary to support the variance. Randall Doctor, owner, said that the revised plan would eliminate some of the square footage of the side yard variance that was originally granted. Boardmember Tollini asked if the stairs going down would be within the house itself, and Mr. Berger said that the stairs are separate and there is a space between them and the house. Boardmember Tollini asked if the lower staircase could be brought into the setback. Mr. Berger said that it could be done, but he liked the angle of the stairs. There were no public comments. Boardmember Tollini said that he visited the site again and saw the view from the inside the house. He said that what was presented last time was an add-on to the originally approved project. He said that he was satisfied with a modification of what was originally approved, but not an expansion. He noted that the current plan would not encroach into the setback any more than the original plan. He said that if the stairs could be brought in line then he would be inclined to support the project. Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Tollini and said that she could support the project now because it would not encroach more into the setback than the originally approved plan. Boardmember Chong agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that the issue with the previous application was that it did not respect the setbacks as much as was necessary. He said that this proposal was now more in line with the setback variance approved in the original project. Chair Kricensky agreed and said that the impact from the road below would be lessened. He also noted that the alignment of the stairs may appear unusual at first glance, but at-grade stairs are allowed to encroach in the setback. Boardmember Chong said that he was fine with the stairs as proposed. ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) that the request for 8 Wilkins Court is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of -approval and the additional condition of approval that the project follows the revised plans received this evening. Vote: 4-0. 2. 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 51110; Zelinsky Properties LLC, Owners; Armstrong Development Properties LLC, Applicant; Sign Permit for installation of exterior signs for a drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy). The project would include a 61.38 square foot, indirectly- illuminated under marquee sign; one 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign, and three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated window signs. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-88 & 89. The applicant is requesting approval of a sign permit for the installation of signage for the soon-to-be- opened drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The proposal includes the following signs: • A 61.38 square foot, indirectly-illuminated under marquee sign above the store entrance. The sign would consist of red plastic letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a white rectangular background. The sign would utilize individual letters, with LED halo-lit illumination. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 EXHIBIT NO. q . Page 2 • A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive- through pharmacy. The sign would consist of red acrylic letters with the word "Drive-thru" on a white rectangular background. • Three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. Each sign would consist of red vinyl film mounted on the window with the words "CVS/pharmacy." Planning Manager Watrous stated that sign ordinance laws are unique, and there are more limitations in the discretion the Town has in approval of signs. He said that the Town consulted attorneys in drafting the sign ordinance so that it is consistent with free speech protections and the way entitlements are treated. He stated that sign ordinances are much less subjective and state that if one complies with the sign ordinance requirements, then one is entitled to what is allowed. He noted that the sign ordinance allows for illuminated signs and it allows for a certain area. He referred to Section 16A-515 which states that if a project complies with all aspects of the ordinance, rules, and regulations then the project shall be approved and issued within the time limit specified. He added that the section of the ordinance that includes the design principles encourages signs to employ the following principles of design: that it should be physically compatible with buildings and surroundings, that high quality and durable materials should be used, and that it should be compatible with the downtown design guidebook. He stated that the Town cannot require that a sign not be illuminated, but they can suggest or recommend that to the applicant. He said that there is some limited ability to deal with color, but there is uncertainty as to whether one's corporate colors can be changed. He noted that the three previous occupants of this building all had red-letter signs on the building. He stated that the Board has some discretion about the background color of the sign, the color of the LEDs on the back sides of the sign, and whether the sign is turned off when store is not opened. Josh Eisenhut, representing Armstrong Development, said that the materials of the letters on the sign would be aluminum, which is industry standard. He said that the sign is proposed to have halo illumination, and he presented a photo as an example of a similar sign from the CVS in San Rafael. He said that the sign itself would not be illuminated, but instead the lighting would be behind it as a halo and produce a glowing effect. He said that the proposed sign package adheres to all sign requirements. He noted that there was a recommendation to modify the color of the panel on which the sign is installed, and he said that they had no objection to that change. He suggested a "minced onion" color for the background to match the color of the rest of the building. Boardmember Chong asked if the wattage on the photo was the same as the wattage that would be used on the proposed sign, and Mr. Eisenhut said it is the same wattage. He also said that the letters in "Pharmacy" are a smaller size than the letters in "CVS". Vice-Chair Emberson asked if there was any interest in installing a wood sign instead of the proposed sign. Mr. Eisenhut said that wood would not be good from a maintenance perspective. Vice-Chair Emberson pointed out that there is a wood sign across the street and that most of the people in the audience object to an illuminated sign. Mr. Eisenhut said that they proposed an indirect lighting source which is toned down. Boardmember Tollini asked if it was possible to do a backlight halo sign substituting wood materials instead of aluminum. Mr. Eisenhut said that he was not a professional sign consultant and out of all of the signs they have placed in the country they have never used those materials. Boardmember Tollini asked if everything viewable on the sign was aluminum. Mr. Eisenhut said that the main identifier would be all aluminum. He said that the back and all of the letters would be made of aluminum. The public hearing was opened. EX-1-11BIT NO. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 _ age 3 Marcia McGovern said the application needed to be denied to make CVS design a sign that is consistent with the sign ordinance. She said that she would like to use this situation as a learning experience for future similar decisions. She said that the vision of the Town of Tiburon includes buildings that are right up to the sidewalk with parking lots in the back and small attractive deciduous trees lining the sidewalk. She said that instead of implementation of that vision, all of the trees lining Tiburon Boulevard were removed. She said that she had 230 signatures on a petition opposing the sign permit for this project. She said that the people of the community do not want a huge glowing red sign. She said that there has never in the history of Tiburon or Belvedere been such opposition to a project. She said that the project violates provisions to enhance property value, views of open space, aesthetics of Tiburon, and does not promote the purpose of the General Plan. She said that the location and placement of under marquee signs are not supposed to exceed 10 square feet in area, and the CVS sign would be five times the allowed square footage. She said that CVS added three frontages together to arrive at that allowed size and pointed out that a sign exception is therefore required. She said that CVS currently has more construction signs than they are allowed. She recommended the application for the sign permit be denied and that the Board direct CVS to reapply for a sign permit that conforms to the sign ordinance, and to submit a revised plan for landscaping to replace the removed trees. Tom Bauch said he and his wife have been residents of the Tiburon peninsula since 1981 and he owns property in both Belvedere and Tiburon overlooking the site of development. He said that illuminating the sign would be inappropriate for the Town and for the site. He said that the sign was more appropriate for a strip mall, which was the basis for his objection. Ken Gerstman thanked Ms. McGovern and Mr. Bauch for their opposition to the signage and wished to add his voice to that opposition. He said that his property would be affected by the signage and that the lighting would affect his children whose bedroom faces the property. Barbara Patten said that the community has not changed radically until CVS, a big box store, has come to a small town. She said that she and a group of women considered boycotting CVS. She discussed all of the fighting that had to be done over a small sign for a hairdresser sign recently. She said that CVS should not be allowed to come in and change the feeling of their whole community. Chris Dennison said that she opposed the signs. She said that the view toward St. Hilary's is one of the main reasons they purchased their home and that the red lit sign would mar that view. She did not see a need for a large lit, sign to find the stores where she will shop. She understood the need for a pharmacy but she did not want CVS to mar the character of their community. Bobby Buich said that she shopped twice at the CVS store in Marin City. She said that there is no lighted sign in that location and she asked for something to be done that is subtle. She said that the halo lighting would ruin the character of the Town. Vera Guerta said that she would like to see an article in the Ark for all of the people who could not make it to the meeting tonight. She would like to understand why there was a fight regarding the signage for the hairdresser while CVS's sign is not an issue. The public hearing was closed. Bill McDermott, representing Armstrong Development, said that the process for this store involved many public hearings and a lot of direction to work with neighbors and listen to design standards. He said that they listened and met with members of the Pt. Tiburon Marsh Homeowners Association. He said that certain standards are allowed by the sign ordinance, and he felt that they were well within those standards. SIT N®. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 age 4 He said that the sign would not be lit up because the way it is illuminated would make it look like it is not illuminated. He said that this was something they had spent a lot of time on and they were confident that the building will blend well into surroundings. He said that the aluminum material is durable and will not wear over the years. He said that they spent a great deal of money improving the building and the parking lot to ensure it will be a safe attractive place for years to come. He said that they are willing to change the color of the background of the sign to taupe or onion. He pointed out the photograph of the San Rafael sign and said that it looked clean and sharp and the lighting is only on the front of the building. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if CVS in Marin City is not lit. Mr. McDermott said that it was a former Longs Drugs and he was not familiar with that project. He said that he had done one project in Napa without letters being directly lit. He said that that sign had a light shining down on it and created a brighter effect than the halo design. He said that the halo design does not have glare and spots of bright light. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if the Napa sign has the same metal letters, and Mr. McDermott said that does, but with lighting from the front. Chair Kricensky questioned how the sign would be attached to the building. Mr. McDermott said that the rear assembly hangs below the eave and the letters project out from that. Planner Manager Watrous asked and confirmed with Mr. McDermott that the sign is attached to the post and would not be suspended from the eave. Boardmember Chong applauded working with the neighbors, but asked if the applicant worked with residents on Corinthian Island and other communities facing the sign. Mr. McDermott said that they worked with neighbors directly adjacent to the store and not with neighbors further away facing the sign. Chair Kricensky pointed out that both Guaymas and US Bank have similar signs that are backlit and asked if this sign would have similar wattage. Brian Durkin, Durkin Sign and Graphics, said that the halo effect can be reduced by using fewer LED lights, but that would leave hot spots instead of a halo effect. Boardmember Chong asked why they chose not to go with a more traditional sign with lights in the front. Mr. McDermott said that a more traditional sign would include lighting interior to the letters which would be brighter. Boardmember Chong asked about a wood sign with lights to illuminate the sign. Mr. McDermott said that that would be similar to what they did in Napa, with lights shining down on individual letters and he felt that it looked cluttered. He said that they felt the halo sign is much cleaner. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if the people in Napa are happy with the sign. Mr. McDermott responded that he was unsure if they would ever be happy and noted that it took five years to approve that building. In his opinion, the proposed sign would have looked better backlit. Chair Kricensky asked if there are lights in the drive-through, and Mr. McDermott said that there are downlights. Chair Kricensky asked for explanation of the vinyl letters on windows. Mr. McDermott said that the code requires windows to not be completely clear, and they have included historic photographs of Tiburon with the CVS logo in between. He said that there is shelving in those areas, and the vinyl graphics will cover the view of the back of that shelving. Planning Manager Watrous clarified that those are shelves that are behind the checkout counters. Boardmember Tollini asked for additional explanation of the lighting on the Napa store. Mr. McDermott said that it uses gooseneck lighting, with one individual light fixture for every letter. Boardmember Tollini said that one light would not be needed on every letter, and fewer could be used if the gooseneck lights were large enough to illuminate the sign. Mr. McDermott said that architecturally the light would come off of the flat roof and stand out. Boardmember Tollini believed that people would rather look at the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 1_ XHIBIT NO,. q Page 5 back of the light than the sign and it would look charming. Mr. McDermott said that he could not imagine the flat roof of the building with that type of lighting on top. Vice-Chair Emberson said that Tiburon has a certain aesthetic they want to maintain. She hoped that there can be more give and take on this sign, especially since people across from it with a view were not consulted on the design. She stated that signage that works in San Rafael may not work in a small town like Tiburon. Mr. McDermott said that he has spent a good deal of time in Tiburon and they have tried to create something that would be appealing and meets the needs of clients, and also breaks the mold of what they normally do. He said that they came in with a modified package that was set up to try to appeal to this community. Planning Manager Watrous clarified the definition of an under marquee sign, and pointed out that the current sign does not meet the definition of an under marquee sign because it would be attached to the posts. He also said that there were several construction signs in violation of the sign ordinance that have now been removed and the remaining signs are construction safety signs and comply with the requirements for construction signs. Planning Manager Watrous said that the issue of frontages is correct and an exception is required in adding frontages together. He recommended that the application be continued to another meeting so it can be noticed that the exception as required. He suggested that the Board deliberate on the current sign proposal to see if there are other actions the Board would like the applicant to address before the continued meeting. Chair Kricensky asked for clarification of internally illuminated signs. Planning Manager Watrous said that internally illuminated and "box" signs are prohibited by the sign ordinance. He said that many cities allow internally illuminated channel letters, and those are also strictly prohibited by the sign ordinance. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if there was any way to help people who have to look down on the roof. Planning Manager Watrous said that that is not part of the application, and pointed out that the roof is not the "minced onion" color. He said that it is a light beige color required by state building codes and they are looking into whether the roof color can be changed. He said that the beige color is the darkest he has seen that meets the code requirements; they are often white or silver. Boardmember Tollini asked where the IGA sign was located on the previous building in this location. Planning Manager Watrous showed illustrations from old files depicting the location of the sign. Boardmember Tollini said he thought that the CVS proposed sign was better because the previous sign was internally lit. .Chair Kricensky said that it would be less impact to have a halo-lit sign. Planning Manager Watrous said that the previous sign was 32 square feet, and the Bell Market sign was 100 square feet. Boardmember Tollini pointed out if they are not able to make the exception for combining frontages the approximate size that would be allowed would be between the columns. Boardmember Tollini asked about the scope of the Board's discretion on the illumination of the sign. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Board can look at some of the aspects of the illumination, but they cannot say it cannot be illuminated. Boardmember Tollini asked if the size is an entitlement and whether the Board can mandate the sign be shrunk. Planning Manager Watrous said they cannot mandate shrinking it below the minimum that is permitted. Boardmember Tollini pointed out if they cannot make the finding for the exception then the minimum would be smaller than if they can make the finding. Boardmember Tollini acknowledged there has been a good deal of uproar to the signage on this project. He said that the things that people were most upset about were things the Board cannot mandate the size and whether it is lit. He said that he was ecstatic that CVS is coming to the location. He pointed out that signs are needed in Town for various things. He said that he spent a good deal of time with the downtown design handbook and his opinion is the halo look is not particularly suited to downtown Tiburon. He said °rrr O, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 - Page 6 that the problem was not that it would be bright but that it would not be charming. He said that the downtown handbook encouraged striving for a charming appearance for signs and this project was consistent with that. He said that he would personally prefer to see a more traditionally painted wood sign with gooseneck lighting that would be more in keeping with the downtown handbook. He did not think that one light would be needed for each letter. Boardmember Chong pointed out that in Hilton Head, South Carolina, even McDonalds has been able to design their building and signage to conform to the look of the town. He thought that a large corporation such as CVS should be able to conform to the downtown guidelines. He said that his home would be impacted even though it is over 500 feet away. He said that he would much prefer a nice classic wood sign. He said that the Town has guidelines because they do not want downtown to look like a strip mall. He said that effort could be put forth to create a sign more fitting with the community. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she would like to see an effort made to bring in more aesthetically pleasing elements to the sign. She said that CVS had helped its neighbors with other issues and it can do likewise with the sign. She said that there was more that could be done creatively to make the community happy. Chair Kricensky said he realized a certain amount of sign area is allowed. He said that the sign would have no relation to the architecture of the building at all. He said that adding lighting with the flat roof would look contrived and he did not think that outside lighting would work with that design. He suggested placing the sign in between the columns and integrating it with the architecture, with some creative connections to the columns. He thought that the backlit lettering was better than lighting the letters themselves, and the DRB cannot change the logo. He said that signs with the shadow effect are influenced by the background. He noted that the background of the US Bank sign is dark and disappears, and he thought that would look more elegant. Chair Kricensky believed that many people will use the CVS, including visitors to the town. Chair Tollini suggested moving the sign under the eave and between the posts so that people in Belvedere would not see it. He said that he would like to see two alternatives, one for if the findings for the exception are made and one for if the exception is not approved. He said that he would also like to see a wood alternative with lighting, so they can compare options. Vice-Chair Emberson and Chair Kricensky agreed that they would also like to see those alternatives. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to continue the application for 1599 Tiburon Boulevard to the January 19, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 45900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,548 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. The applicant is requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling with a floor area exception, located at 91 Sugar Loaf Drive. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling. As more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls of the dwelling will be demolished, the application has been deemed a new single-family dwelling. The new lower level of the home would include three bedrooms, two bathrooms, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #18 12/15/11 k_,, °T~r A Page 7 Z4 -J~ - I ~ B ~ NO, To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting January 19, 2012 Agenda Item: 2 Subject: 1599 Tiburon Boulevard; File #51110 Sign Permit for the Installation of Signs for a Drug Store and Pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy), With a Minor Exception (Continued from December 15, 2011) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a sign permit for the installation of signage for the soon- to-be-opened drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The original proposal included the following signs: • A 61.38 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign above the store entrance; A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive-through pharmacy; and • Three 4.60 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. The application was reviewed at the December 15, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, it was determined that the requested sign permit required a Minor Exception in accordance with Section 16A.720 (c) of the Tiburon Sign Ordinance, as the proposed total sign area involved the transfer of sign area from one establishment frontage to another. The subject building has three frontages and all of the sign area was proposed to be installed along the frontage facing Tiburon Boulevard. The Town received numerous objections from local residents regarding the size, design and illumination of the proposed signs. The Design Review Board felt that the aluminum materials for the main store sign were inconsistent with the character of Downtown Tiburon and suggested that the applicant explore a wooden sign. Similarly, the Board asked the applicant to consider replacing the indirect, red LED halo-lit illumination with a different indirect lighting system. The Board also encouraged the applicant to submit two different sign proposals, one which would require a Minor Exception and one that would not require an exception. The Design Review Board continued the application to the January 19, 2012 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the proposed signage. TOWN OF TIRURON r PAGE 1 OF 8 L"Xl~lfflll` NO. Pu-J"11 Rc\ic~\ Roars MCCtin" Ia ILMI-V 19, 2012 The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed signs. The revised project design includes four options, described as follows: Option I A 64.5 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance. The sign would consist of 30 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored aluminum background that would follow the contours of the sign letters. The sign would be illuminated using red colored LEDs behind the letters, defined as halo-lit illumination. Option II A 72.2 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance. The sign would consist of 30 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored, rectangular aluminum background. The sign would be illuminated using four gooseneck lighting fixtures shining onto the face of the sign, mounted on the building above the sign. Option III A 64.5 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance. The sign would consist of 30 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored aluminum background that would follow the contours of the sign letters. The sign would utilize halo-lit illumination using red colored LEDs behind the letters. An additional sign would be mounted on the Beach Road side of the building. This 37.1 square foot sign would consist of 20 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy," mounted directly onto the wall of the building. The sign would utilize halo-lit illumination using red colored LEDs behind the letters. Option IV A 72.2 square foot, indirectly-illuminated sign mounted between the pillars above the store entrance. The sign would consist of 24 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy" mounted on a tan colored, rectangular aluminum background. The sign would be illuminated using four gooseneck lighting fixtures shining onto the face of the sign, mounted on the building above the sign. An additional sign would be mounted on the Beach Road side of the building. This 37.1 square foot sign would consist of 20 inch tall red aluminum letters with the words "CVS/pharmacy," mounted directly onto the wall of the building. The sign would be illuminated using four gooseneck lighting fixtures shining onto the face of the sign, mounted on the building above the sign. TOWN OF TIBURON 5- PAGE 2 OF 8 EXHIBIT NO. hc~'ion Revicw Board Mcctin J antiary l9) 20 1 2 All four options also include the following signs: • A 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign mounted below the canopy of the drive-through pharmacy. The sign would consist of red acrylic letters with the word "Drive-thru" on a white rectangular background. • Three 4.53 square foot non-illuminated signs in the storefront windows. Each sign would consist of red vinyl film mounted on the window with the words "CVS/pharmacy." These additional signs are identical to those previously reviewed by the Design Review Board, except that the window signs have been reduced in size from 4.60 square feet to 4.53 square feet each. ANALYSIS The total sign area requested for the four options ranges from 81.28 square feet for Option I to 126.08 square feet for Option IV, each of which would be greater than the 78.75 square foot maximum sign area for a building of this size. Although Options III & IV include smaller lettering than Options I & II, the sign ordinance calculates the size of a sign based upon the framing of the sign, including its background area. As previously noted, the sign area calculations and subject application do not include signs for the unknown future retail tenant that would occupy the southwest corner of the building. As noted above, Section 16A.720 (c) of the Tiburon Sign Ordinance requires an exception to transfer sign area from one establishment frontage to another. Section 16A.520 (a) states that: "A Minor Exception applies to requests that deviate from the sign provisions for sign area or sign height by less than twenty (20) percent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any sign area Exception involving no more than five (5) square feet, or involving transfer of sign area from one frontage to another pursuant to Section 16A.720(c), shall be deemed a Minor Exception." The maximum sign area allowed for this property with a minor exception would be 94.5 square feet. Option I would be eligible for a minor exception, but Options II, III & IV, as currently proposed, would require a major exception. It should be noted that if the building frontages are considered separately without a minor exception to transfer area from one frontage to another, the proposed sign facing Beach Road in Options III & IV would be eligible for a minor exception based on the length of the Beach Road frontage of the building, but the combined signage requested for the Tiburon Boulevard frontage of the building would require a major exception. The notice prepared for this continued sign permit application only indicated a minor exception, rather than a major exception. Approval of a major exception would require a continuance and renotification of the application. The revised sign designs are somewhat responsive to the direction given by the Design Review Board at the previous meeting. Options II & IV would utilize indirect gooseneck lighting fixtures instead of the halo-lit illumination. The 24 inch letters of the main sign for Option IV would be TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 8 r EXP1 BIT NO. llc~i'21n 1Zc\'ic\v Roard \lcctink, ~anuaF~' 19, 2012 smaller than the 30 inch lettering previously proposed, but the total sign area for all the main sign options are larger than that previously proposed, and Options III & IV include an additional sign facing Beach Road. The aluminum sign materials for all signs and red LED lighting for Options I & III are unchanged. All four options would require a sign exception. In order to grant the any sign exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16A.520 (c) of the Tiburon Sign Ordinance: 1. The exception is necessary to overcome special or unusual site conditions such as exceptional building setbacks, and lack of or limited visibility due to orientation, shape or width of the property and/or building improvements; The Tiburon Boulevard frontage of the building is situated 125 feet from the front property line, which is an exceptionally large setback that limits the visibility of signage from the street. 2. The exception is appropriate in that it would allow signage that would be in harmony and scale with the building and site improvements, and would be physically compatible with other conforming signs in the immediate vicinity; and Most other approved nonresidential signs in the vicinity do not include additional window signage or signs on two building frontages. In order to evaluate the scale of the proposed primary sign in relation to the building, it is appropriate to evaluate the size of the primary building signs of the previous tenants of this building: Safeway: The internally illuminated channel letter sign was 20 feet long and utilized 20 inch tall letters, for a total sign area of 33.3 square feet. Bell Market: The sign consisted of a 4 foot tall, 11 foot long set of internally 'illuminated channel letters and a 14.5 foot long, 3 foot tall internally illuminated box sign, with a total sign area of 87.5 square feet. A 31.5 square foot freestanding sign was also approved at the corner of the lot, near the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road. Delano's IGA Market: This sign utilized internally illuminated channel letters and logo, with a height of 2 feet and a length of 16 feet, for a total sign area of 32 square feet. The market also utilized the freestanding sign at the corner of the lot. The size of the Safeway and Delano's signs are similar to the 32.5 square foot maximum that would be allowed for the current tenant without a minor exception to transfer sign area from the other building frontages to the Tiburon Boulevard building frontage, and minus the frontage allowable for the future retail tenant in this building. The Bell Market sign was substantially larger in relation to the building. None of the previous tenants had approved window signage. The previous uses did not include a drive-through facility and therefore had no signage related to such a facility. TOWN OF TIBURON _ PAGE 4 OF 8 EXHIBIT NU. 5 N,,,lon Rc lov Rc)ard Mcctin(T January 19, 2012 3. The exception would permit an improvement that would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on-site or off- site. The proposed signage would not be detrimental or disruptive to the safety or flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic either on-site or off-site. The proposed sign above the drive- through pharmacy may be necessary to direct traffic to this portion of the site. Staff believes that the findings cannot be to support the proposed signage as requested under Options I through IV. The size of the primary sign, inclusion of window signage and the possible second sign on the Beach Road side of the building add up to substantially more signage than has previously been found to be sufficient for this building. However, if the primary sign was reduced in size to 32.5 square feet, the directional necessity of the drive-through sign would justify additional sign area above that allowed for the Tiburon Boulevard building frontage and the minor exception to transfer allowable sign area from the Beach Road building frontage to the Tiburon Boulevard building frontage. The applicant has not changed the materials of the proposed signs. At the December 15, 2011 meeting, the Design Review Board encouraged the applicant to consider wooden signs. At that meeting, the applicant indicated a reluctance to do so, as wooden signs tend to weather poorly, particularly in marine environments such as that found in Tiburon. Other commercial businesses in Downtown Tiburon have a mix of wooden and metal signs, and both such materials are allowed by the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. Staff would recommend approval of the following revised signage: • Revised primary sign to a total size no greater than 32.5 square feet; • Indirect sign illumination with either white LEDs or gooseneck lighting fixtures; • Non-illuminated drive-through sign as proposed; • No window signage or signage facing Beach Road; and • A requirement that the illuminated sign be turned off after business hours. If the Design Review Board wishes to consider signage with a total area greater than 94.5 square feet, the application must be continued to a future date, with notice given for a request for a major exception. PUBLIC COMMENT Since the December 15, 2011 meeting, the Town received 49 copies of an electronic petition, a copy of which was previously distributed to the Design Review Board, opposing the previous sign design. As of the date of this report, two a-mails have been received regarding the revised project design. TOWN OF TIBURON x 4_ F PAGE 5 OF 8 TUT n~sin 1zc\ic\\ Goarcl Nlcctin anuary 19, 2012 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board: 1. Review this project with respect to the Sign Ordinance and the Downtown Design Handbook; 2. Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15311; 3. Approve the project as described above, or as further modified by the Board, subject to the attached conditions of approval. 4. If the Design Review Board wishes to consider a major exception or to review revised signage plans before making a decision on this application, the application should be continued to a future hearing date, subject to agreement by the applicant to a Permit Streamlining Act extension. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Design Review Board staff report dated December 15, 2011 3. Letter from Marcia McGovern, dated January 9, 2012 4. Letter from Marcia McGovern, dated January 10, 2012 5. Lighting details 6. Revised plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 8 EXHIBIT NO. APPROVED MINUTES #1 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2012 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong and Johnson Absent: Boardmernber Tollini Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that the items for 2308 Mar East Street, 91 Sugar Loaf Drive and 4 Old Landing Road have been continued to the February 16, 2012 meeting. D. OLD BUSINESS 1. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet, respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. CONTINUED TO 2/16/12 2. 1599 TIB,URON BOULEVARD: File No. 51110; Zelinsky Properties LLC, Owners; Armstrong Development Properties LLC, Applicant; Sign Permit for installation of exterior signs for a drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy), with a Minor Exception. The project would include one or more indirectly-illuminated signs; one 3.19 square foot non-illuminated under marquee sign, and three 4.53 square foot non-illuminated window signs. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-88 & 89. The applicant is requesting approval of a sign permit for the installation of signage for the soon-to-be- opened drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy) at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard. The original proposal included the following signs. The application was reviewed at the December 15, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, it was determined that the requested sign permit required a Minor Exception, as the proposed total sign area involved the transfer of sign area from one establishment frontage to another. The subject building has three frontages and all of the sign area was proposed to be installed along the frontage facing Tiburon Boulevard. Numerous objections were received from local residents regarding the size, design and illumination of the proposed signs. The Design Review Board felt that the aluminum materials for the main store sign were inconsistent with the character of Downtown Tiburon and suggested that the applicant explore a wooden sign. Similarly, the Board asked the applicant to consider replacing the indirect, red LED halo-lit TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 1 1/19/12 EXHIBIT illumination with a different indirect lighting system. The Board also encouraged the applicant to submit two different sign proposals, one which would require a Minor Exception and one that would not require an exception. The Design Review Board continued the application to the January 19, 2012 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the proposed signage. The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed signs. The revised project design includes four options for a primary sign facing Tiburon Boulevard, a drive-through pharmacy sign, window signs and/or an additional sign facing Beach Road. The signs would utilize either halo-style lighting or gooseneck indirect lighting. Bill McDermott, representing Armstrong Development, clarified his comments regarding gooseneck lighting at the CVS store in Napa made at the last meeting and said that since that time he had driven by the CVS store in Napa and revised his opinion, stating that the sign's lighting at that store looks nice. He said that the staff report summarized four options with none of them completely conforming to the guidelines of the Town. He presented two additional alternatives which fell within the square footage limits, using the same proposed materials because they were concerned about wear and tear. He said that the first alternative, Option V, would use halo illumination, similar to Union Bank at the other end of town. He said that they chose a minced onion color instead of a highly reflective white. He said that the second alternative, Option VI, includes gooseneck lighting instead of halo illumination. He said that both the sign on Beach Road and the one facing Tiburon Boulevard could be illuminated this way, but they felt that the gooseneck lighting would be better on the Beach Road side of the building and the halo lighting would be better on the Tiburon Boulevard side. The public hearing was opened. Jeannette Carr said that she was extremely disappointed that CVS would be coming to Tiburon as her neighbor. She said that Chase Bank has a white sign and she did not see the issue with the sign. She felt that a down-lit white sign the same size as Delano's would be a start to mending the store's relationship with neighbors. Maryalana Ellis said that she would like to underscore the fact that other CVS pharmacies have not had similar illuminated signs and described gold-colored wooden signs she saw at CVS store in Washington, D.C. She asked that these alternatives be pursued. Holly Nyerges said that the proposed sign was too heavy-weighted, did not look good architecturally, would be too far out front and looks as though it would be suspended on two posts. She wondered why the sign could not be set further back where it could be seen and with the same feeling as Woodland Market across the street. She said that she could not find the CVS sign at all on the Mill Valley store on East Blithedale Avenue. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the CVS store in Mill Valley on East Blithedale Avenue has red plastic, internally illuminated, channel lettering facing East Blithedale, and that the store in Marin City also has red plastic internally illuminated channel letters. Marcia McGovern, Tiburon Belvedere Coalition, said that she had 266 signatures all of whom say "no" to a red sign and halo lighting. She was happy that CVS was not now asking for an exception, and said that the sign type proposed did not fall within any definition of the ordinance as it is not a wall sign or an under marquee sign. She said that by not specifying the sign type, the applicant had skirted the restrictions on those types of signs. She stated that a specialized attorney drafted the sign ordinance and the intent was to keep the signs within the ordinance. She said that neighbors do not want a red sign, and they would appeal a red sign, but they would like a white sign with a grey background. She did not want four or five gooseneck lights because that would provide too much light, would like a specified beam spread and maximum wattage for the lighting, and a requirement that all exterior lights be extinguished when the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 EXHIBIT NO 1/19/12 store is closed. She showed a photo of a CVS sign in Chatham, Cape Cod, which has a custom color, a backer panel, white gooseneck lighting, and matches the rest of the signage in its vicinity. She presented a photo of Bank of America across the street with a small sign integrated on the wall. She pointed out that 90 days after opening their doors, the CVS conditional use permit will come up for review and if residents have any problems they can complain about it at that time. She also noted that there are five new large parking lot new lights and 14 lights on the exterior of the building. Bill Lukens, member of the Lyford Cove Old Tiburon Homeowners Association, said that they have approximately 200 households and they are the local residents that will be patronizing this store. He said that he had been authorized by the Board of Directors of the Association to state that they formally support the position described by Ms. McGovern. He said that the trees and signs are very important to the community. Jeff Goddard said that he has lived in Belvedere long enough to remember the sign which Bell Market had, which he thought was ghastly and would not like to see again. He said that the staff recommendations went a long way toward meeting people's needs. He thought that the gooseneck lighting was the only alternative that should be approved, and that the lettering should be white or a more neutral color. Klaus Meinberg pointed out that local residents will be visiting the CVS store and he said that all the residents of Belvedere and Tiburon already know where it will be. He said that tourists will not go to the CVS and there was no need for the sign to attract anyone. He said that he has a small business in town with wooden signs that have never deteriorated in 25 years and he did not see the reason for a metal sign. Mr. McDermott said that they felt that they were given clear direction at the last meeting. He said that they reduced the size of the signage, reduced lighting, changed to goosenecks, and changed the backer panels. He stated that it was evident that the other signs referenced at the meeting were the result of requirements of the shopping centers regulating their color. He said that the subject property does not have those restrictions and they would like to keep the sign with the corporate red color and made of metal. He deferred to the Board regarding lighting. Boardmember Chong asked if the only reason CVS was reluctant to use a wooden sign was maintenance, and Mr. McDermott answered yes. Boardmember Chong asked and confirmed that other colors were not considered because CVS's corporate color is red. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Emberson said that it seemed like CVS was alienating their demographic, which was sitting in the room, but she was not sure if the Board could make CVS use white lettering. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Board has some discretion in terms of color, the type of lighting, and materials, but they do not have discretion over size of the sign if the sign does not require an exception. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she loved the gooseneck lighting. She was glad that the signs were reduced in size and preferred a white sign if that was the consensus. She said that the sign on Beach Road would have to be very small for her to support it. Boardmember Johnson said that the discussion presented at the meeting was extremely relevant. He felt that a sign was not needed at all, as everyone in town will know where to find the store. He thought that the sign design missed the nature of the community, which is similar to what was shown in the photograph of Chatham. He believed that a corporate store should be designed to fit within the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 r 3 1/19/12 EXHIBIT NO' community. He cited the fact that many residents are upset, and encouraged CVS to think about making the signs fit the town. Boardmember Chong said that the main issues were color, size, materials, and lighting. He agreed with staff's conclusions regarding size. He did not buy into the argument that a wooden sign would require maintenance, pointing out that landscaping also requires maintenance, and artificial landscaping would have been rejected if maintenance was the only issue. He said that a wooden sign needing to possibly be replaced should not be the determinant of the materials. He appreciated the gooseneck lighting solution, said he saw the photograph of the Chatham sign lit up at night and felt that three gooseneck fixtures clearly provided enough illumination. He felt that the color was the most difficult decision and he understood the corporate branding around red signage. However, he said that it was not necessarily true that everyone who shops at the store will live in Tiburon, although he thought that 80-90% of the customers will be from the area and most will know where it is. He said that it was clear that CVS has made exceptions in other areas of Marin and even the east coast to fit more within the community, and he would like to see the colors changed to fit in better. Chair Kricensky agreed with some of what other Boardmembers said. He found the size of the sign to be more reasonable with the revisions. He understood the desire for the corporate color, but felt that the red sign would clash with the colors of the building. He said that he would like to see colors that complement the building color more and believed that it would be hard to see the sign if it were moved back to the wall of the building. He also said that the other tenant that would go into the building needed to be considered and signage would need to be consistent. Mr. McDermott said that the primary sign would be back in between the columns and not extend past them. He reviewed the detail of the sign showing it mounted on the front of the columns, and noted that the letters themselves would be located between the columns below the eave. He requested the Board be specific if it chooses another color so they know how to proceed. Planning Manager Watrous said that one of the colors in the approved palette for the building is an equestrian grey which might be an appropriate color for the backing. Chair Kricensky suggested using the equestrian grey for the backing, with white lettering. He asked and confirmed with Mr. McDermott that any sign proposed on the Beach Road side of the building would be the same size as the other sign. Mr. McDermott agreed to make both signs the same size, and Planning Manager Watrous. noted that the Board does not have the authority to require the sign to be smaller since it is under the maximum required size. Chair Kricensky said he is torn on the materials. He pointed out one does not notice the materials until one is right upon it. He noted that the sign for Kol Shofar had very weathered letters with upkeep involved. He said that a dark colored backing with white letters would work much better with the building itself. He suggested the connections to the columns could be an architectural element instead of a utilitarian bracket. Vice-Chair Emberson said that a rectangular wooden sign painted equestrian grey with white lettering would be agreeable to the residents. She felt that the Beach Road sign was large for that side of the building, since the only time it would be seen would be when driving out of Tiburon. Planning. Manager Watrous said that it appeared to be a consensus to approve Option V with modifications: All signs have white letters with equestrian grey, rectangular background, made of wood, gooseneck lighting, non-illuminated drive-through sign and reducing the size of the Beach Road sign to 30.48 square feet. All Boardmembers agreed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 _ 4 1/19/12 EXI-T TBIT 0,-- = - - ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnsoil) that the request for 1599 Tiburon Boulevard is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval that Option V be used with the following modifications: all signs have white letters with equestrian grey, rectangular background, made of wood, gooseneck lighting, non-illuminated drive-through sign and reducing the size of the Beach Road sign to 30.48 square feet. Vote: 4-0. 3. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Pari and Lopa Choksi, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,548 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. CONTINUED TO 2/16/12 E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 4. 1600 MAR WEST STREET: File No. 711131; Tiburon Peninsula Club, Owner/Appellant; Appeal of Staff-level conditional approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review for installation of eight (8) exterior lighting fixtures on a trellis adjacent to the clubhouse of a private recreational facility (Tiburon Peninsula Club). Assessor's Parcel No. 058-240-21. On November 28, 2011 the Planning Division conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for installation of exterior lighting fixtures above a patio adjacent to the clubhouse of the Tiburon Peninsula Club (TPC) on property located at 1600 Mar West Street. The applicant has now appealed this decision to the Design Review Board. The applicant submitted a request to install eight (8) low level lighting fixtures in an existing trellis above a patio outside the clubhouse building of the Tiburon Peninsula Club. The proposed fixtures are rated at 50 watts but were proposed to be limited to 20 watts per fixture. The submitted plans indicate two rows of four fixtures: one row at the midpoint of the trellis and one row at the outside edge of the trellis. The lights are intended to illuminate the patio outside the clubhouse for occasional evening activities. During the ten-play courtesy public review period, the Town received no complaints from neighboring residents. However, it has been the practice of Planning Division staff to discourage double rows of exterior lighting in instances where one row of lighting will suffice as a means of curbing excessive exterior lighting. On November 28, 2011, staff conditionally approved the subject application. Condition of Approval No. 1 required that "the number of lighting fixtures shall be reduced from eight (8) to four (4)." During the five-day appeal period, the applicant appealed Staff's decision to the Design Review Board. David Holscher, past President of the Tiburon Peninsula Club, distributed drawings showing the planned location of the lighting and a sample of the Lumiere 235 light. He said that the reason they need 8 lamps is-well documented in the site plan. He said that the circle on the drawing shows the area illuminated. He said that the fixtures would be downlights that create light in very specific locations. He said that if they remove any of the fixtures any they would create a dark space in the trellis. He said that the fixtures would be narrow spectrum downlights and therefore more of them are needed to properly light the outdoor space. Planning Manager Watrous noted that the drawing was a slightly different lighting solution than what was proposed and the lighting would be more centralized over the area beneath the trellis. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 ~ 1/19/12 EXHIBIT N O.___ - /n_ Town of Tiburon - 15055 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 - sww.ci.tiburon.ca.us NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION On January 19, 2012 the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action Granted Sign Permit approval for installation of signs for a drug store and pharmacy (CVS/pharmacy), located at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard (File #51110). Approved as submitted (X) Approved with conditions Denied as submitted Continued to Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your records: Approved plans Appeal provisions of the Town (X) Revised conditions of approval O No attachments Other - Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following thie meeting, and will be provided upon request. After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain a Building Permit from the Tiburon. Building Division for your project. Information on Building Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Division at (415) 435-7380. For additional information regarding this application, please call me at (415) 435- 7393. Sincerely, Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager EXHIBIT NO. 7 r oF-3 Jim Fraser Mayor . Emmett O'Donnell Vice Mayor Richard Collins Councilmember Frank Doyle Councilmember Alice Fredericks Councilmember Margaret.A. Curran Town Manager l`c:;i ~ R t i,:tia koarc1 \lccri AIIiI arV 1, 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD FILE #51110 (AS AMENDED AT THE JANUARY 19, 2012 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING) l . This permit approves signage for the business located at 1599 Tiburon Boulevard in the Town of Tiburon. The sign(s) shall be in conformance with the application approved by the Town of Tiburon on January 19, 2012, as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the application as approved must be reviewed and receive Tiburon Planning Division approval. 2. The plans for the project are approved with the following modifications: a. Option V is approved as modified below. b. All signs shall utilize wood materials. C. All signs shall utilize white letters on a rectangular, Equestrian Grey background. d. Indirect sign illumination shall utilize gooseneck lighting fixtures. e. The sign facing Beach Road shall be reduced in size to 30.48 square feet. f. The drive-through sign shall not be illuminated. Compliance with all applicable safety codes is required. 4. Prior to erection of the signage, sign owner shall obtain all required building, electrical, or related permits pursuant to the Town's adopted building and construction codes, as set forth in Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 5. Prior to erection of the signage, an encroachment permit (if required) shall be secured from the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department for all work to be conducted within Town right-of-way, or Town-owned land, as defined in Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 6. The issuance of this sign permit shall not be valid if the approval constitutes a violation of the Tiburon Sign Ordinance (Chapter 16A of the Tiburon Municipal Code). No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of said chapter shall be valid. 7. The approved sign utilizes exposed light sources. This permit approval is conditional upon, and only becomes final when, within sixty (60) days of commencement of operation of the lighting and sign, the Director of Community Development finds that the light from the sign does not cause unreasonable glare or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibility. The sign owner must immediately inform the Director in writing of the commencement of operation of the lighting and sign such that the Director's review may proceed expeditiously. Failure to so notify the Director shall toll the commencement of TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 8 EXHIBIT NO, -7 Z cl= 3 )AllWWI, 2 1? the sixty (60) day review period commensurate with the delay in written notification. The Director's finding with respect to unreasonable glare or annoyance may be made only after a duly noticed hearing at which evidence is taken and a written decision is issued. The Director of Community Development's inquiry shall not include consideration of the message content of the sign, and shall be restricted to the physical method of presentation (i.e. lighting) of the message. The Town may make inspections as necessary to determine whether any sign is in compliance with this approval and other applicable regulations. Reasonable notice shall be provided when the inspection requires access to areas other than those available to the general public. 9. Dilapidated signs are prohibited. The sign owner shall maintain the sign and all supporting components in good repair and finish. Substantially deteriorated, badly weathered, rusty, or otherwise poorly maintained signs shall be subject to public nuisance abatement or other available remedies. 10. This sign permit shall be valid for 180 days following approval, and shall expire and become null and void unless the signs, as approved, are erected prior to that date, unless an application for time extension, filed in writing with the Planning Division, is granted by the Director of Community Development. 11. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 12. The illumination for all exterior signage shall be turned off at all times outside approved business hours of operation. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 8 EXVIp BIT NO. -7 P ~ ar3 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 179 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 2 EXC.-IBIT NO. 8 Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 3 'HI 31T NO. SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORYPOLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) day prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 4 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff- level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON -ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 E5 XHII3IT N0, 0*11-low 0 H w 0 e a a ti M ~ n 1 ' T 1 a s .ft. V y s i rx 1 r, 1 f t t - 41 n 1' --PUeW i i C LRC-L& f WASK IMOM& ~ (7a G . EXHIBIT NO. t i>- P, i OF-5- Address P Street Northwest , Address is approximate 0A&41W.vT,tAj -b-C, EXHIBIT NO.- I D 2 of 5 Address 3030 14th Street Northwest - Address is approximate WA5H#,Vv;*`t M'ID, c . XF,IBI'T' NO. P 3 c) c= S 7 Address 1692 P Street Northwest gle Address is approximate )A& tiAGTMj ~D.c FAJUBTT NO. D p q Address 992 20th Street Northwest Go.glc Address is approximate Address 2048 L Street Northwest SIC Address is approximate EXHIBIT NO. -P, 5 yr 5 Page 1 of 12 Scott Anderson From: marcia mcgovern [marshmcgovern@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:23 AM To: Councilmember Frank Doyle; askalicenow@usa.net; rctib2@gmail.com; Vice Mayor, Emmett O'Donnell; Mayor, Jim Fraser Cc: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson Subject: CVS Appeal Petition signature list and comment list February 14, 2012 February 14, 2012 Dear Mayor Fraser and Members of Tiburon Town Council, Below please find a list of signers of the Online Petition Entitled: Tiburon Town Council: "Tell CVS No Red Signs Means NO Red Signs" and Throw Out the Beach Rd. Sign! Each of you has been designated as a "target" for this petition (as you shall be the deciders of the outcome of the subject appeals) and each of you should have received 249 petition letters, some of which include personal comments from the signer, as of this writing. As petition organizer, I have written to the Town Manager, Ms. Curran, also a target, requesting confirmation of receipt of petition letters but my email has gone unanswered. Thus I am providing you a complete list of signatures and petitioner comments at this time. A hard copy of this email will also be submitted at Town Hall today. I would greatly appreciate if you would read the individual petitioner comments as the community sentiment on the matter of the CVS sign is united, unmistakable and deserves to be considered. Thank you, Marcia McGovern Pefition Organizer Tiburon and Belvedere Coalition Petition Signers: Rodric O'Connor, Tiburon, California,94920,United States, 2012-02-01 Marti Andrews,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Jennifer Hull,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Carole Gunn, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01 Julie Coffin, Belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01 Sujata Pherwani, Belvedere, California, 94920, Albania, 2012-02-01 Mimi Clarke, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01 Jeanette CARR,belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01 Rayna Bernard,tiburon,California,94920-1920,United States,2012-02-01 Gary Hankamer,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Kim Logie,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Dellie Woodring,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Patsy Perring,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 EXHIBIT NO. 2/21/2012 Page 2 of 12 Azi Najafi,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Ken James,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Sheryl Ott,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 joy kuhn,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 dilys bart,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Trudi costello,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Cynthia DeRouen,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 James Todd,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Peter Clarke,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Claire-Marie Laidley,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-01 Marlene Halden,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Holly Hudson,Tiburon,California,95920,United States,2012-02-01 Dawn Zierk,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Doug Woodring,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 John Tantum,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Melissa Pulling,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Bill Lukens,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Robert Brown,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Kirstin Hoefer,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Frances Barbour,Tiburon,California,94920-1344,United States,2012-02- 01 Patricia Montag,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Wendy Soule,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Loy Ann Price,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Vicki Englert,Tiburon,California,94929,United States,2012-02-01 joseph Englert,Tiburon,California,94929,United States,2012-02-01 Deborah Luby,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 James Draeger,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Kimberly Draeger,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Lucrecia Coomber,Tiburon,California,94920-1634,United States,2012-02- 01 Scott von St•ein,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Phillipa Criswell,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Betty Gaye Toney,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Duffy Hurwin,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Krista Jacobsen,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Julie Goldman,Chesterfield,Missouri,63017,United States,2012-02-01 Lynn Pasternak,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920-2174,United States,2012-02-01 Mary Lane,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Deborah Newton,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 maureen filmer,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Carolyn Losee,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Carol Kurland,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Georgene Usher,Belvedere ,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Richard Hyde,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 susan wilkins,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Geri Barsotti,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Ed and Sheila Thomson,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- . *_fi I~ J~.it NO . 2/21/2012 Page 3 of 12 01 Barbara Patten,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 lynn lubbock,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Michelle Friend,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Ellen Smith ,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 tiffany sams,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Susan Schneider,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Judith Abel,Basel„ 48028,Switzerland,2012-02-01 E. Payson Smith Jr.,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 gregory taylor,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 randee binstock,belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01 Mimi Ogden,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Julie Croker,Tiburon,California,94920,Cambodia,2012-02-01 Mary Loveland,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-01 Philip Maslin,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Tari Nix,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Michael Coffee, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01 gail harter,belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-01 Joan Sadler,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Laurie James, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 carmelita crane,Greenbrae, California, 94904 United States, 2012-02-02 Nancy Freed,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 susan Moore, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 Alison Parsons, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 RoyAnne Florence,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Gerald Florence,Belvedere,California,94920,United St ates,2012-02-02 sherry minton,mill valley, California, 94941, United States, 2012-02-02 Cres Van Keulen, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States. 2012-02-02 molly hynes, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 Tina Meinig, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 jackie brown,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Sara Haynes, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 barbara meislin,Tiburon,California,94920,Uni.ted Stat es,2012-02-02 Linda Higgins,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Terry McGovern,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Rosemary Royer,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Stephanie Mendel,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Bernard brehier, tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02 William Brown,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Shelly John,Wheaton,Illinois,60189,United States,2012-02-02 Carolyn Finnegan, Kihei, Hawaii, 96753, United States, 2012-02-02 Jeanne Price,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Leela Pratt,Belvedere Tiburon, California, 94920, United States,2012-02- 02 Margaret Simpson,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Jarvis Jones,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Bob Gouveia,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 Cathleen Gouveia,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-02 0 ' -11BIT ova. ~ 2/21/2012 Page 4 of 12 Mark Ginalski,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Pete Linscott,Eugene,Oregon,97402,United States,2012-02-03 Anne Butler,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Linda Meinberg,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Matt Suchodolski,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 janet wasko,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Klaus Meinberg,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Marcia McGovern,,,,, 2012-02-03 Sharon bass,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Joan Bekins,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Kira Skomer,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Dale Houxk,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 John Houck,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 William Strickland,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Tom Price,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Beverlee Kell, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Judy Webb,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Dennis Manalo,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Catherine Vitch,Sparks,Nevada,89436,United States,2012-02-03 Patricia Hokenson,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Alice Holly Noble, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 earl Hokenson,Belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 carole ellison, tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Paula LeRoy, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Bill LeRoy, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Shelby allen,tiburon,California, 94920,United States, 2012-02-03 Dave John,Denver,Colorado,80212,United States,2012-02-03 Piper Berger, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Don Bekins,Belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Anandamayi Arnold,Berkeley,California,94704,United States,2012-02-03 Claire McAuliffe,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Eric Crandall,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-03 ' Marcelle Scholl, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Kristina Glaves, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 mary mcdevitt,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Karen Ferguson, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 David Liebendorfer,Larkspur,California,94939,United States,2012-02-03 Anne Bastien,Fairfax,California,94930,United States,2012-02-03 Susan Cattell,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Mona Bille,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Donna Gray, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 kate baker, belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03 Stephanie Regan,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Edward Laurson,Denver,Colorado,80235,United States,2012-02-03 Edward Regam,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-03 Elliott Cattell,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Anne Feinberg,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Catherine Kennedy, Tiburon, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-04 Preston Petty,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 NO. 2/21/2012 Page 5 of 12 Mila Reif,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Chris Ardito,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Henry Royer,Cedar Rapids,Iowa,52403,United States,2012-02-04 Maureen Corcoran,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Robert Benbow,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Hank McWhinney,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Joe Lavigne,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 helen mak,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-04 Harriot Manley,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-05 Isabella Nicolaides,Coatesville,Pennsylvania,19320,United States,2012-02-05 William Tellini,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-05 Sarah Weldon,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-05 ANNE NORMAN,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-05 Marybeth Sheppard,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-05 janice sunderland,belvedere,California,9,United States,2012-02-06 Benita Truman,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-06 Margaret Lukens,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 dana thor,juno,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 Diane Williams,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 cynthia polansky,mill valley,California,94941,United States,2012-02- 06 daniel goldberg,BELVEDERE TIBURON,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 carol berg,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 John Sanford,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 Kenneth Gerstman,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 katherine mavrantonis,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 06 Barry Kuhn,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 Barton Hoey,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-06 brian lanticr,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Geri Thayer,"Tiburon,",California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Michael Lasky,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Adrea Goldberg,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Rick Tonsing,Fair Oaks,California,95628„ 2012-02-07 Susan Lukens,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Mary Alana Ellis,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Patricia Pickett,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Donald Pickett,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-07 Mary Gloria Hunter,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 07 Vicky Tuorto,San Quentin,California,94964,United States,2012-02-07 M. J. Reynolds,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Sarah Fagan Greenberg,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 08 Susan Brautovich,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Robert Finch,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Noel Isaac,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 EXHB IT' NO. I 2/21/2012 Page 6 of 12 phillip moffitt,belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Kristen Vasquez,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Drucilla Gensler,Mill Valley(Strawberry),California,94941,United States,2012-02-08 Courtney Finnegan,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 John Bryant,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Robert hartman,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Jim Baker,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Susan Hendrickson,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Jay Andrews,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Peter Brooks,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-08 Joseph Headley,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Bill Downs,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Simone Downs,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 robert darcy,Fairfax,California,94930,United States,2012-02-08 Sherry Caplan,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Linda Moore,Mill Valley,California,94941,United States,2012-02-08 Heather Staples,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Scarlett Headley,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 Chris Buttner,Tiburon,California,94920„ 2012-02-08 jeffrey caldewey,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-08 susan hunter,belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 dan hunter,belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Linda Hevern,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Jack Garvey,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 09 Monica Planes,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Connie Peirce,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Ellen Sanford,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Harvey Rogers,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Edith Helmholz,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-09 Concerned Citizen,New City,New York,10956-2406,United States,2012-02- 09 Cyndi Margolis,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Helen Muirhead,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Judy Sanford,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Fraser Muirhead,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 dan oppenheim,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012- 02-09 Robert Peirce,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Sydney Joyner,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Janice Still,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Eduard Still,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 angela chen,belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-09 Joni Pratt,Tiburon,California,994920,United States,2012-02-10 Tom Kassberg,Belvedere,California,94920,United States,2012-02-10 Barry Wootton,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-10 NO ~ 2/21/2012 Page 7 of 12 Deborah Shillam,Keighley „ BD22 United Kingdom,2012-02-10 lynne sentivany,sausalito,California,94966,United States,2012-02-10 suzan benet,Belvedere-Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 11 Nena hart,Belvedere Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 11 Diane Lynch,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-11 Rochelle Coffman,Greensburg,Indiana,47240,United States,2012-02-11 Joseph Ostrow,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-12 tracey cominos,tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02-13 Phil hart,belvedere,California,94920 United States,2012-02-13 Paul and Iris Tandler,Tiburon,California,94920,United States,2012-02- 13 Wendy Miller, Belvedere, California, 94920, United States, 2012-02-14 Petitioner Conunents Name,City,State,Zip,Country,SignedOn,Comment Marti Andrews,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-0l,stop big business from ruining the looks of our small beautiful town. Carole Gunn, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01,Please support support the people of Tiburon as well as Belvedere who do NOT want these signs overwhelming their communities. Mimi Clarke, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01,"A good example example of what the citizens of Tiburon and Belvedere expect, to respect the character of our town, is the discreet sign of the Woodland Market. Red Metal - NOT!" Cynthia DeRouen, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01, "To protect protect Tiburon against the blight of big-box ugliness. OVS needs to back down! Remember people ""it takes a village!""" Bill Lukens,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-01,It would be a di distraction and would be inconsistent with the subdued lighting enjoyed by the Town. Robert Brown,Belvedere,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-01,"Here we go a again! Let's keep it up, folks." Frances Barbour,Tiburon,CA,94920-1344,United States,2012-02-01,Because 01,Because CVS needs not excessively toot it's own horn for any practical reason whatsoever. Wendy Soule,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-01,Big red plastic plastic lettering is the antithesis of what this small and charming AL- ..SIT Nv. _LL_ 2/21/2012 Page 8 of 12 community is all about. James Draeger ,Belvedere, CA,94920,United States, 2012-02-01,"I will be able to see any signs from my home. If we are going to WalMart this town with big box stores, could we at least show some class and some considerattion for the residents that live here." Kimberly Draeger, Belvedere, CA, 94920, United States,2012-02-01,We can see any west facing signs from our home. A red neon lighted sign is so ugly and out of character for our town. We are shocked that CVS would appeal what appears to be a reasonable compromise by the Planning Commission. Scott von Stein,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-01,TO PRESERVE TIBURON'S SMALL TOWN/ NON COMMERCIAL IMAGE. Phillipa Criswell, Tiburon, CA,94920,United States, 2012-02-01,"A red lettered plastic illuminated sign on the side of a building which will only be visiible to locals from the Old Tiburon Neighborhood and Hill Haven neighborhoods is an anathema to me. The other 3 corners of the intersection, B. of A, Shark's Deli and Woodland's Market have minimal lighted signage.Not what I want to see driving home at night, please keep it that way." Susan W, tiburon, CA, 94920,United States, 2012-02-01, "no big signs in Tiburon, please" Ed and Sheila Thomson,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-01,Not suitable to our town. Ellen Smith , Tiburon, CA, 94 92 0, United States ,2012-02-01,"The CVS red metal sign is NOT an acceptable color or appropriate design for it's business-in Tiburon. The Tiburon DRB has already decided this signage matter with the proviso that it would be white wood. If ""In & Out"" can build it's MV restaurant WITHOUT it's usual ""drive thru"", why can't CVS understand after 2 months of protest that the town of Tiburon, while approving a sign for the CVS Company, does not want, need or will allow a ""red metal sign"". The CVS Corporation is NOT generating ""good will"" among the majority of the clientele it will soon be serving. Thank you. Ellen Smith" Wendy Soule,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-01," E. Payson Smith Jr.,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02- 01,Signage CVS wants is inappropriate for the character of the town. Wendy Soule, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-01,"CVS will more EX:H IBIT NO~ 1 2/21/2012 Page 9of12 likely receive more repeat shoppers if it maintains a Sailing Town exterior design vs. a shopping center large store exterior image & signage. If CVS puts up a metal sign that appears to be a natural wood grain in grey, white-washed or natural wood color, it would be in keeping with the Sailing town esthetic, not need much upkeep and could be a good solution for CVS and the Towns' Residence. " Mary Loveland,Belvedere Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02- 01,Keep Tiburon charming and attractive! Philip Maslin,Tiburon,CA,94920-1909,United States,2012-02-01,"We don't need a garrish sign on Tiburon Blvd., let alone on Beach Road. Why can't CVS be satisfied with the origninal sign they agreed to of white/gray wood on Tiburon Blvd? What good will a sign do on Beach road? The only people who will see it are those coming down from their homes in Old Tiburon (myself included). I know where CVS is, and don't need a tacky looking sign to remind me." Joan Sadler, Belvedere, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02,"you do not need a red sign -we will all be aware of,- and appreciate your arrival" barbara meislin, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02, "Hoping that CVS will use COMMON CORPORATE SENSE in understanding that if they do not listen to the folks who live in this community, they will alienate the very people they are counting on to be customers. Many may-choose to never set foot in the store if they feel violated by the lack of responsiveness to requests for an aesthetically compatible building. How foolish to be losing customers before they even open their doors. They could on the other hand be welcomed and supported if they just followed a common sense law..... and stopped at the RED LIGHT." Stephanie Mendel, Belvedere, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-02,"A glowing red, halo-lit sign does not fit in with our community's aesthetics." Carolyn Finnegan,Kihei,HI,96753,United States,2012-02-02,I am against ruining the village type character of Tiburon with garish signs that are not needed. Mark Ginalski,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,The appeal by CVS does not meet the requirements of the Town of Tiburon's sign ordinance nor the spirit of the various building codes and planning documents which create the visual/asthetic fabric of our Town. Klaus Meinberg, Tiburon, CA, 9492 0, United States, 2012-02-03,"We live here because it is a ""village"". Let's keep it that way. No ""big- box"" signs." EXHIBIT NO. I I 2/21/2012 Page 10 of 12 Marcia McGovern,,,, United States,2012-02-03,Because our town is too beautiful to be blighted with inappropriate signage Joan Bekins,Belvedere,CA,94920,United State5,2012-02-03,"Do not permit the red metal signs; they are not in keeping with the character of our community. A subtle, white wood sign is appropriate. A sign on Beach Road is not needed, nor is it desirable." John Houck,Belvedere,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,"Regardless of the color, in the coming years, we will all see the sign and know that it's CVS. CVS needs to reflect on what we will be thinking when we see it." Dennis Manalo,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,"CVS has shown a complete disregard for the very neighbors that would be its customers. If it were up to me, they wouldn't be in Tiburon at all. Not because they are a big chain, but because of their flagrant contempt for their neighbors' concerns." Catherine Vitch,Sparks,NV,89436,United States,2012-02-03,I've been to Tiburon. It is a quaint little area. It should stay as is. Paula LeRoy,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,Why are we pursuing this red sign? Piper Berger, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-03,"CVS has chosen to move into one of the most visable buildings in our lovely town. This good choice should be paired with a handsome low key sign. We all know where CVS is, and visitors will have no problem finding them as well." Marcelle Scholl,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,We live in a small town. We know where everything is. We do not need red signs. Karen Ferguson,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,A red sign would be a blight on our small town. David Liebendorfer,Larkspur,CA,94939,United States,2012-02-03,"No ugly tacky signage as punishment for the all the trees they cut down. Plus, they should be made to replace all the native trees they cut down!! if Susan Cattell,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-03,11I really really don't want these signs. I live 2 blocks away, and have been happy to have CVS near by, BUT DO WANT THESE signs, there is no reason for garish, loud, ugly signs. We will all know right where it is, the largest stand alone building entering Tiburon. You can't miss it just as it is!!" fi ] °)31 1 NO. [ L 2/21/2012 Page II of 12 Anne Feinberg,Belvedere,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-04,I've lived here for almost 40 years. When I think of all the small businesses we have given a hard time over their small storefront signs I'm shocked that this is even an option. Henry Royer,Cedar Rapids,IA,52403,United States,2012-02-04,Don't goof up Tiburon with an unsightly sign. cynthia polansky,mill valley,CA,94941,United States,2012-02-06,"The absence of huge commercial chain store advertising will maintain the natural, 'small town feel of Tiburon. Signs, erected in harmony with the surroundings, are far less intrusive and invasive; they are hardly informative because everyone will know where CVS is without the need for neon light directions.. " carol berg,tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-06,11there is no doubt where the CVS is ( you can actually see the ""pharmacy"" sign inside the store from the street)-- large red signs are completely unnecessary" Barry Murray,Belvedere,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-07,"The store is a local store, people won't be driving from all over just to go to this CVS. It is very obvious where it is..... Lights aren't necessary and certainly a red sign isn't ...I don't need red to make me know its a CVS, the letters CVS say it all. keep tiburon and belvedere ""old fashioned"". " Patricia Pickett,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-07,11I personally feel there was no need for CVS in the first place with a CVS right in Mill Valley just off the freeway plus other similar stores in the area. There probably won't be the support they are looking for in the long run anyway and we'll end up having them move on at some point in the future. So best to set the standard for signage now before we have to fight this fight again. As mentioned already, they have rail-roaded everything else, the least they can do is honor this request." Sarah greenberg,Tiburon,CA,094920,United States,2012-02-08,Enough is enough! A coporation is trying to tell us what we want when we don't want it. This greedy company thinks it can outlast the citizens of the town/wear them down. Bob Finch,Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-08,"Putting large red signs in Tiburon is silly, and CVS should be a lot more sensitive to this. The grapevine will advertise CVS in town, not some stupid bright red sign" Drue Gensler,Mill Valley,CA,94941,United States,2012-02-08,"We were to long time residents, raised children and volunteered for years in 2/21/2012 Page 12 of 12 Tiburon...remember denying bigger signs to almost all businesses unless truly exceptional reasons. This blatant disregard for our community and the rules is unacceptable. Thanks for standing up for the people, Drue and Art Gensler\ robert hartman, tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-08,Ugly red sign is an insult to any aesthetic perspective downtown. No sign is necessary. A green elephant would be obvious downtown. Jay Andrews, Tiburon, CA, 94920, United States, 2012-02-08,"Dan Watross has sold us out, again." William Downs,Tiburon,CA,949; Town Council needs to follow Board and stand firm against What's next - flashing neon? Rafael? CVS needs to understand that customers - in fact it would 20,United States, 2012-02-08,"The Tiburon the recommendation of the Design Review CVS. Will Tiburon become as ugly as San a hideous sign is not going to attract be a good reason to boycott the store." Ellen Sanford, Tiburon, CA,94920,United States, 2012-02-09,"I am deeply disappointed that the Council has allowed this chain store to have the right to add visual pollution to the very downtown area that we are all striving to upgrade, enliven, and create a compelling sense of ""character"" within. What on earth could the council be thinking?!?!?!?" Edith Helmholz,Belvedere Tiburon,CA,94920,United States,2012-02-09,I will not shop there ever if they insist on red signs 2/21/2012 ZELINSKY PROPERTIES LLC 130 MAIN STREET, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 TEL 415.435.1053 ■ FAX 415.435.6514 e L lw j f r February 27, 2012 Mayor Jim Fraser and The Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: CVS Pharmacy Sign Appeal Dear Mayor Fraser and The Tiburon Town Council: PLAN MIN '2' 0 !'V 10-1 ON As a long-time member of the Tiburon and Belvedere communities, I am very concerned about the recent issue raised about the CVS proposed signage. The signage contains the trademark red CVS logo. There has been a significant amount of misinformation regarding the signage and I would like to offer the reasonable opinion of the majority which has been stifled by a few. First, the CVS signage is not a new change or condition to the property. Commencing in the early 1960's, the CVS site, occupied by Safeway, Bell Market and most recently DeLano's IGA, all had red illuminated signage on the property. There are also other red illuminated signs in close proximity, including Bank of America and most recently Union Bank. I am not clear how this should be treated differently. Second, this property is located in the Tiburon commercial zone, which includes retail use. I have heard an argument that signage is not important because we all know where the CVS is. Regardless of the size of the store or the corner location, signage is an important aspect of ANY retail operation. Additionally, .Tiburon attracts many visitors. Whether they arrive by automobile, ferry or bicycle, these customers are not insignificant to CVS and proper signage will be necessary for visibility. Third, we suffer from a lack of viable retail to serve our community. Therefore we are forced to drive to Mill Valley or farther for prescriptions or other services that we should be able to obtain locally. This results in increased traffic on Tiburon Blvd, lost sales tax revenue for the Town of Tiburon, as well as lost time and inconvenience to the community. The Town of Tiburon as well as the Chamber of Commerce work hard to build local retail vitality. Denying signage, that has already been approved, would send a very negative message to other retailers who would otherwise choose to locate to Tiburon. Fourth, CVS has played by the rules in obtaining all permits and approvals and has made a significant investment in improving a very visible property at the entrance to the retail area of Tiburon. Additionally, CVS will bring essential goods and services that we all need today as well as contribute to a true destination for retail prosperity in Tiburon. CVS will allow locals to shop in Tiburon since there is no necessity to travel to Mill Valley to fill a needed prescription. EXHIBIT NO. (2m_ P, I bFID Tiburon Town Council February 27, 2012 Page 2 Fifth, and most important, CVS's signage permits were properly granted. CVS applied for signage that fits within the Tiburon signage design requirements. The signage does not exceed what is allowed nor did CVS request signage in excess of what is allowed. Additionally, CVS went through the approval process, which includes noticed public comment and hearing procedures and the signage was properly approved by the Town of Tiburon. I do not write this letter as the owner of the property leased to CVS or as the owner of other commercial property in Tiburon. I write this letter as a member of the community that desires to see Tiburon regain its retail life and flourish as a place where local members of the community have the ability to shop locally and therefore further increase the quality of life we all enjoy here. Sincerely, Laleh S. Zelinsky cc: Peggy Curran, Town Manager Scott Anderson, Community Development Director EXHIBIT NO. Z- z & to RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Connie Wiley Belvedere RECEIVED Claude Perasso Belvedere F E B 2 r" " ' Dick Greene Tiburon PLANNING DIVISION Barbara Temby Belvedere Gail Stine Tiburon Gary Lucas Tiburon Lynn Lubbock Belvedere Chuck Ricte Tiburon Christine Kohler Tiburon Jon Ranken Tiburon Janice Cherry Belvedere Edward Cherry Belvedere Claire Slaymaker Belvedere Rob-Slaymaker Belvedere Lander Hynes Tiburon Jeffrey Clark Tiburon Marie Cruz Lambert Tiburon Paul Lambert Tiburon Laurie Greene Tiburon Kathy Perasso Belvedere Miriam Davina Zelinsky Tiburon/New York Patrick Ryan Montclair, New Jersey Matthew Schmidt New York T. J. Lucas Tiburon David Berelson Tiburon EXHIBIT NO. I'Z - - 3 e~P Cv RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Riva Berelson Tiburon R E C E I ED Carl Peschlow Tiburon/Belvedere FEB 2 , George J. Hagenberg Belvedere PLAivdRIiNG DIVISION Michael Miller Albany Savannah Miller Albany Gary Morgan Tiburon David Emery Belvedere Ellen Tobin Strawberry/Mill Valley Nancy Bellinger Tiburon Sally Bellinger Tiburon Travis Bellinger Tiburon Adam Bellinger Tiburon Jeff Knight Knight's Hardware Tiburon Hank Bruce Tiburon Steve Sears Sam's Anchor Cafe Tiburon Deborah Weezmaerer Tiburon Cindy Siciliano Cindy's Hair Salon Tiburon Shokou Faterir Tiburon Timeke Lanser Tiburon Junella Swendeman Tiburon Phyllis Foster Tiburon Jon Stephens Tiburon Maggie Herico Petaluma/Tiburon Lyn Honda Tiburon Eva Clairborne Tiburon 12- ~ i4 O< 10 RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Keith Bartel Tiburon Eva Temby Tiburon RECEIVED Miguel Rodriguez San Pablo L FEB Edward Pizzuti Tiburon PLANNING DIVISION Antonio Volpicelli Tiburon Don Antonio Trattoria, Inc. Tiburon Fernando Sanchez San Pablo Jon Ranken Tiburon Susan Reinhard Mill Valley Rick Hayes Mill Valley Sabrina Reinhard-Hayes Mill Valley Peter Winkler Strawberry Brooke Tognazzini Tiburon Andrew Tognazzini Tiburon Fred Potter Belvedere Christine Potter Belvedere Susan Wilkinson Tiburon Pat J. Tiburon Justin Storm Waters Edge Inn Lincoln, CA Julieann Martin Lincoln, CA Manuel Sanchez Novato Elisha Hodges Tiburon Ricardo Matalbon San Bruno Andres Cervanto San Bruno Gay Morgan Tiburon -r 1I11 NO. Z -3- P.5 e;p l CD RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Don Antonio Tiburon RECEIVE Eduardo Velado Tiburon FEB L 4 Ken Lucas Tiburon ~ PLANNING DIVISION Joan Lucas Tiburon Matt Lucas Tiburon Peter Lucas Tiburon Ed Lynch Tiburon Fire Department Tiburon Dave Puglisi Dave & Mike's Tiburon Allison Puglisi Tiburon Rosalinda Isle Tiburon Spareja Tiburon Juan Pareja Tiburon Elizabeth Dilling Tiburon Vanessa Russell Tiburon Vince Fanghella Tiburon Yotis Sherbeck Windsor/Tiburon Carolyn Duorz Tiburon Adrian Wilkens Tiburon Domingo Garcia Tiburon John Wm. Bryant Tiburon Jennie Chew Tiburon Ineke Priest Tiburon Laurel Bertoncini Tiburon David B. Bennett Tiburon/Belvedere Tiburon/Belvedere Rotary Chamber of Commerce Board Member Member Marie Claire Bennett Tiburon/San Francisco X.~ IBI`' NO 12- -4 - , RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Ronald Ciffa Tiburon Randy A. Armbruster Tiburon RECEI'~.D Dan Latorre Tiburon FEB 2 b John Russen Tiburon PLANNING DIVISION Mario Stauffracher Tiburon Lisa Sabella Tiburon Lana Taylor Tiburon K. C. Taylor Tiburon Thierry Couderc Tiburon Gisela Couderc Tiburon Meredith Lee Giles Tiburon/San Francisco Jim Bryant Tiburon C. D. Reita Tiburon Lisa Lukianoff Tiburon/Belvedere Chris Raney Belvedere Joanne Norman Tiburon Joanne Norman Tiburon Ric Postla Tiburon Kathy Larson Belvedere Land Company Tiburon Robin Copeland Belvedere Charles Gallagher Corte Madera Wright Bates Sausalito Sandra Esposito Angelo Servino Servino Ristorante Tiburon Bernard Brehmer Servino Ristorante Servino Trattoria Margaret Rieflity Belvedere -5- 7 DP I RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Margo Jender Tiburon Rick Jones Tiburon Bonnie Jones Tiburon Jeff Newman Strawberry PLANNING DIVISION Tom Pulley Tiburon Diane Newman Strawberry Andy Slucky Tiburon Ann Slucky Tiburon Mogens Bach Tiburon Katherine Bach Tiburon Rich Allen Novato Ryan Allen Ignacio Mary Allen Novato Kenneth Allen Berkeley Allison Yardens San Francisco Guy Yardens San Francisco Melanie Haddat Tiburon Lee Shroyer Mill Valley Luming Shroyer Mill Valley Melly Hajiar Tiburon Keith Fuller Mill Valley Terri Dreyfus Belvedere Timothy Peterson Tiburon Michael Mullen Tiburon Peterson-Mullen Construction, Inc. Tiburon EXT-ITBIT NO. v i) I RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit RECEIVED Alan H. Rappaport, NES, Inc. Tiburon David Maottar Tiburon Ft L b ~ U 12 Chris Heden Tiburon PLANNING DIVISION Joe Bensom Tiburon Henriette Corn Tiburon Stephanie Ziegler, Tiburon Pilates Studio Tiburon Roy Ziegler Tiburon Melissa Perrelli Carlisle, Pennsylvania Gabrielle Vazquez New York Meredith Berger New York Kirsten Fuller New York Shala Batman Washington, D. C. Mona Ameli San Francisco Michele Lepine Belvedere Linda Wilkie Healdsburg Deborah Robert Kaizer Tiburon Dr. Dora Gavros, DDS Tiburon Staff of Dr. Gravros Dental Office Belvedere John Rooney Sausalito Laurie Jacob San Francisco Shizuko Shichima San Rafael Don LeBuhn Mill Valley/San Francisco Jan Jones Belvedere Casey Jones Belvedere Marilyn Gilmore Belvedere Pres Gilmore Belvedere I,-- lb RE: CVS SIGN APPEAL SUPPORTERS OF CORPORATE RED LOGO CVS is within the Sign Ordinance Permit Sue Benvenuti . Tiburon RECEIVED Roy Benvenuti Tiburon FLE 8 L8 LEI Dennis McDonald Belvedere PANNING DIVISION Dom Comfort Tiburon Pricilla Miller Tiburon Melisa Miller Tiburon Mitch Wilk Tiburon G. Roger Felton Belvedere Nancy Caldwell Belvedere Breck Caldwell Belvedere Margo Elberg Tiburon Jeffrey Collins Be;vedere Lynette Collins Belvedere Raymond Fox Mill Valley Penny Fox Mill Valley Margaret Kenney San Francisco Evans Baggs Mill Valley Stephen Baum Mill Valley Rachael Christma n Mill Valley Adam Christman Mill Valley jXT -s- lboF10 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Terry Hennessy [thennessy@vinnies.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:05 PM To: Mayor, Jim Fraser Cc: Dan Watrous Subject: CVS Sign Hi Jim, I was in Rancho Mirage last weekend and noticed the CVS Pharmacy sign was NOT RED. I didn't pay too much attention as I drove past but noted it was not red and not illuminated. You might ask them to provide you with a photo of the sign down there. Therese "Terry" Hennessy Director of Community Partnerships St. Vincent de Paul Society of Marin County P. 0. Box 150527 San Rafael, CA 94915 (415) 454-3303 x 22 (415) 717-1570 - Cell www.vinnies.org thennessy@vinnies.org 13_ EXHIBIT NO. Gary K. Lucas 1805 Centro West RECEIVED Tiburon, CA 94920 FEB 29 2012 PLANNING DIVISION February 22, 2012 Mayor Fraser and The Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: CVS Pharmacy Sign Appeal Dear Mayor and Council Members: Please accept the following submission on behalf of the local business owners in support of the application to install a sign on the above referenced business in a manner which is consistent with the other locations for this particular retailer, nationwide. The standard type of sign proposed for this location will in no way detract from the character of the existing use of the downtown area. It is historically consistent and in fact less substantial than signage which was allowed for prior businesses at that location. Much talk has been made about plans to revitalize the downtown business area as it is a critical component to our community as a whole. If we are to enjoy the company of business such as this which are primarily designed to serve local residents as opposed to visitors, then we must provide an environment which fosters such and allow them to do what they need to do to thrive. The complaints that have been raised are regarding the specific color that is proposed for the CVS sign. This is despite the fact that the design, including the color, were within the requirements of the existing regulations. Several other businesses in downtown have signs which exhibit a national corporate logo and are in colors that are familiar and recognizable to all. It would be unfair to single out CVS for more restrictive design conditions by reason of an extremely small but very vocal bank of complainers. The Town should embrace this nationally known and respected retailer and do whatever it can to insure a situation which is most conducive to success. EXI-IIBIT NO. P CCA--Z- Mayor Fraser & Town Council February 22, 2012 Page 2 We do not need vacant buildings. The community needs healthy and prosperous entrepreneurs. It is urged that the Council reject the appeal which seeks to stifle progress and rejuvenation. Please allow the CVS sign to be made according to the previously approved design and homogeneous with the other merchants in the downtown area. Your Y7 Gary K. Lucas Tiburon resident for 55 years and President of Tiburon/Belvedere Chamber of Commerce cc: Peggy Curran, Tiburon Town Manager Scott Anderson, Director, Town of Tiburon Community Development EXHIBIT NO._-J 2 oFZ Dear Mr. Anderson and Ms. Curran: Marcia McGovern's campaign against the Tiburon CVS is misinformed, spreads misinformation to others, and amounts to nothing more than harassment. What her exclamation- mark laden diatribes in her Change.org "petition updates" fail to acknowledge is the simple, unavoidable fact that CVS Pharmacy's logo is red. As a nationwide chain with more than $55 billion in annual revenue, over eighty thousand employees, and seven thousand stores, there are at least two major reasons why CVS cannot agree to arbitrary sign-color demands. First, like any major company, CVS has invested huge sums in its brand and image. Its parent company, CVS Caremark, is one of the twenty largest companies in the U.S. and has achieved this size through a strong brand that consumers recognize and trust. While some degree of store design localization is reasonable, demanding modifications to a logo is not. McDonalds, for instance, famously builds locations that look nothing like a typical suburban fast food store, but each and every one of these restaurants features the famous golden arches. And the color of the logo is not a minor thing. Rather, major consumer companies spend vast amounts designing every aspect of their logo, of which color is a major part. These agonized-over color choices impart to customers the very specific message that the company's marketing team wishes to send. Perhaps CVS has chosen red because it suggests health, appropriate for a pharmacy. To force them to change the logo for one store is an unreasonable demand, and it discourages other companies from doing business with the Town of Tiburon, a foolishly short-sided move in the current business climate. Second, regardless of why CVS chose red initially, this is what consumers associate with the brand and using different colors creates confusion. Indeed, recently a CVS is Indian Wells - which had a gold sign due to pre-existing zoning standards requiring gold signs - was allowed to change its signage to red after customer complaints due to people having trouble finding the store. When shoppers want to go to a CVS, they look for a red sign, and can see its distinctive color and outline even from angles where the entire sign is not readable. They do not look for a white sign. Forcing a new store to enact measures that hamstring its ability to bring in customers is simply perverse, and is a step that should not even be considered, let alone taken. Sincerely, Matthew W. Schmidt T I EXHE BIT NO. Dan Watrous From: Peggy Curran Sent: Thursday, February 23, 20121:56 PM To: Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: FW: IMG00399-20120124-1356.jpg Please consider this a letter for the file re CVS. Thanks, Peggy Margaret A. (Peggy) Curran Town Manager, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435-7383 ncurranPeLtiburon.ca.us www.ci-tiburon.ca.us From: Deirdre McCrohan [maiito:dmccrohan@Thearknewspaper.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:05 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: Fwd: IMG00399-20120124-1356.jpg Peggy, Am forwarding this photo from B.B. Bernheim. Deirdre Begin forwarded message: From: bb4eventsCDgmail. com Subject: I MG00399-20120124-1356. j pg Date: February 23, 2012 7:21:50 AM PST To: dmccrohan(a)-Thearknewspaper.com Reply-To: bb4events(aximail.com From Santa Barbara state street! EXHIBIT NO.J! _ R 10~ Z 2/29/2012 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT NO. I Ca z arz Page 1 of 3 Scott Anderson From: JESanford7@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:26 PM To: Councilmember Richard Collins Cc: Scott Anderson; Peggy Curran; Mayor, Jim Fraser Subject: Fwd: CVS Sign Appeal/Letters to the Tiburon Town Council 2/24/12 E C E ~ V F 0 FEB 272012 TOWN ATTORNEY-," ~uE TOWN OF TI 6",\-l_.;J Dick, Scott, Peggy and Jim, here is a legal way to handle CVS's sign application. We are counting on you to protect our Town. John John E. Sanford 60 Pine Terrace Tiburon, CA 94920-1432 Land: 415-435-2139 Cell: 415-509-2139 E-Mail: jesanford7@aol.com From: marshmcgovern@gmail.com To: dgoldbergsf@gmail.com, judyjimhunter@prodigy.net, sam@echosports.com, annieblocksheray@aol.com, audreyhitchcock@gmail.com, bbmkee1 @msn.com, kbkuhn@yahoo.com, bfh@thegrid.net, lantierbf@sbcglobal.net, carol bergc@yahoo.com, carolinebaker@me.com, cramini@sbcglobal.net, danathor@aol.com, gerithayer@gmail.com, juanisa@ca-hi.net, jesanford7@aol.com, oconnor.grandslam.karen@gmail.com, kjohnson123@msn.com, kengerstman@yahoo.com, marksilverman@comcast.net, seri@pacbell.net, reese.jones@ucsf.edu, rlshur@sbcglobal.net, rcattell@mail.com, srs@sheraylaw.com, siminmassoudi@gmail.com, sue35muir@aol.com, taracorina@hotmail.com, tirrell.graham@gmail.com, visstrategies@sbcglobal.net, toria94147@yahoo.com Sent: 2/24/2012 5:04:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time Subj: CVS Sign Appeal/Letters to the Tiburon Town Council 2/24/12 Hi Everybody, I have fantastic news about the CVS appeal. Read on! The CVS sign appeal hearing is in two weeks. We have over 250 signatures on the petition which is fantastic! But CVS is lobbying very hard for their red, metal signs so we must press on. The best way to be effective is to follow up with letters to the Tiburon Town Council via the Mayor, the Director of Community Development, and the City Manager. And, of course, to show up to the Town Council meeting on March 7, 2012 and speak up! HERE ARE THE FACTS E X HH.IT 2/27/2012 Page 2 of 3 CVS is citing Federal Trademark Law "the Lanham Act" in their appeal papers. They are going to push as hard as they can for their red trademark color using Federal trademark law as their hammer. But the fantastic news is, we've got a much more powerful legal decision on our side! Because of a sign case very similar to ours (people not wanting a big-box logo sign erected) the 9th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals (the highest court for our area) has rendered a decision on matters of trademark signs. Here is what it means to our situation, in a nutshell: The Town Council cannot make CVS substitute white letters instead of red on their trademark logo sign. WHAT THE TOWN COUNCIL CAN LEGALLY DO PER THE 9TH CIRCUIT DECISION IS: 1. DENY ANY CVS TRADEMARK SIGN AT ALL 2. REDUCE THE SIGN AS SMALL AS THEY WANT, 3. RELOCATE THE SIGN TO ANYWHERE THEY WANT 4. APPROVE A CVS SIGN WITH WHITE LETTERS OFFERED BY CVS 5. REMOVE THE BEACH RD SIGN The 9th Circuit decision gives the Tiburon Town Council a powerful too/that they can use to give the people what they want. But you have to let the Town Council know that you want them to use that tool and how you want it used! We need to come together one more time in a united front to preserve our community aesthetic by insisting on appropriate signage. The hearing is "de novo" and that means we are starting from scratch so everything is on the table. HERES WHAT YOU CAN DO Everyone should write a letter to the Town Council via the Mayor, City Manager and Director of Community Development, telling them exactly what you want. Keep in mind, we have over 500 residents who have indicated that they don't want a red sign! Below, are recommendations for the key points that need to be addressed: .1. No Red Metal Signs for CVS. Wood Signage with White letters only for the Main entry sign and the drive thru sign. 2. Eliminate the Beach Rd CVS Sign in Entirety 3. If CVS will not offer to use white letters for their approved 30.48 sf Main Entry sign, and insist on their trademark red letters, reduce the size of the Main CVS sign to 10 W ft and relocate the sign to the wall face to the left of the entry doors, per the 9th Circuit decision. 4. No exceptions for CVS, (no Tiburon Blvd total signage area greater than 32.5 sf) 5. No illumination for any CVS Signage Here are the email addresses: Jim Fraser lsfraserl@comcast.net Mayor Peggy Curran pcurran@ci.tiburon.ca.us City Manager Scott Anderson sanderson@ci.tiburon.ca.us Director of Community Development Hopefully, the third time will be the charm and we will be done with this matter at last. Please send a letter urging the Town Council to do what you want using the tools the 9th Circuit Court has given them! EXITIJBIT 2/27/2012 [ • .2- bF 3 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for your support. Marcia McGovern Tiburon and Belvedere Coalition 131T NO, V7 2/27/2012 Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Carol Nusinow Kurland [Carol@mikanet.com] FEB 2 72012 Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 3:28 PM TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE To: Mayor, Jim Fraser; Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson TOWN OF TIBURON Subject: CVS sign Dear Mr. Fraser, Ms. Curran, and Mr. Anderson: With regard to the CVS appeal to the Town Council concerning signage for their store on Tiburon Blvd: A few years ago the Town Council denied the owner of a hair salon on Tiburon Boulevard a much smaller, less intrusive sign inside her store than the huge red metallic sign CVS is demanding facing Tiburon Boulevard. Please note that CVS has a store in the Bon Air Shopping Center that has a white sign made out of wood. People have no problem distinguishing this store as a CVS property. Please deny their appeal. A white sign made out of wood is a much better fit with our neighborhood. Sincerely, Carol Kurland 350 Beach Rd. Belvedere EXIITBIT NO, (8- 2/27/2012 D Page lof l Ins ~ uu FEB 272012 Scott Anderson TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE . ..._~._.,~___...~...,TOE...O~..TtBt~R~~t~~TVrsv~~urv~r~tvt From: Califdell@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:25 AM To: jfraser1 @comcast.net; Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Vice Mayor, Emmett O'Donnell; rctib@gmail.com; askalicenow@usa.net; Councilmember Frank Doyle Subject: CVS Signage Dear Town Council, Peggy and Scott: We hope you can hold firm and deny CVS the large, red signage they are requesting. This kind of corporate branding is not consistent with the character of our town, or the whole Tiburon peninsula. If allowed, an unwanted precedent will be set, and we will have lost a chance to have a store entry fitting to our charming community. Please require CVS to use wood signage with white letters ONLY. In additiion to looking better, this will tie the Beach Road/ Tiburon Blvd. intersection together as an entry to downtown, since Woodlands Market, across the street from CVS, has the tasteful white signage. Please eliminate the Beach Road sign. A sign here is not necessary - the drive-thru window will be self evident and that window is easily explainable to anyone who gets "lost" and can't find it. I can't imagine this to even be the case. Please limit the size of the sign and relocate it to the left of the entry doors if for some unexplained reason you feel compelled to allow red metal. We would hope that this isn't even a possibility. 250 signatures on a petition should be a clear directive to our town government and to CVS for what Tiburon/Belvedere residents DON'T want. CVS will be starting off on the wrong foot if they ignore the community in this matter - one would think they would want to be as "user friendly" as possible, and not alienate potential customers. The property has had an attractive remodel and they should be commended for this. Let's not mess up the finished product. Thank you to all of you for your hard work on behalf of Tiburon citizens. Dellie and Doug Woodring 2' -L~ SIT N0. t C1_ 2/27/2012 P- #11 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON From: Mimiclar@aol.com [mailto:Mimiclar@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 2:25 PM To: Peggy Curran Subject: CVS I remain opposed to CV5' plan for a red lettered sign. Their corporate argument is bogus as precedent has already been set. It is not suitable to the ambience and character of Tiburon. It is not necessary - everyone knows they are here. You will no doubt have received many letters referencing the 9th Circuit findings and therefore are aware of the control you can wield. Do it. Mimi Clarke 20 Geldert Dr. Tiburon TJ-I~FB 20 EX.L-3 NO. EIV- TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON From: Jim Fraser [mailto:jsfraserl@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:39 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: FW: cvs FYI From: simin massoudi [mailto:siminmassoudi@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:11 AM To: jsfraserl@comcast.net Subject: cvs dear mr. fraser, i live at 34 red hill circle & am against the big red sign of cvs. it will be an eye sore for our town. sincerely, simin meykadeh. EYT I T T 31 T NT 0 , ~z I Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Bob Finch [kunacrest@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 6:45 PM To: Scott Anderson F E B 2 7 20 1 2 TOWNATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Subject: CVS' giant RED signH H i Scott, I sent an email just like this to Jim Curran & Peggy, but I wanted you to see it too. live near the very top of Esperanza St. and am more than annoyed by CVS' inability to consider the needs of our small community. Once CVS is ensconced (and I do like their new building) in their location, everyone who will trade there will know exactly where they are without any signs at allH Anyway, Marcia & Co. have come up with some very reasonable considerations for dealing with CVS on this gross red sign issue: 1. No Red Metal Signs for CVS. Wood Signage with White letters only for the Main entry sign and the drive thru sign. 2. Eliminate the Beach Rd CVS Sign in Entirety 3. If CVS will not offer to use white letters for their approved 30.48 sf Main Entry sign, and insist on their trademark red letters, reduce the size of the Main CVS sign to 10 sq ft and relocate the sign to the wall face to the left of the entry doors, per the 9th Circuit decision. 4. No exceptions for CVS, (no Tiburon Blvd total signage area greater than 32.5 sf) 5. No illumination for any CVS Signage Scott, when you think about this great new facility in the future, hindsight will suggest that having any gargantuan and brightly-colored signs as they're currently pushing for will be totally silly-if they do a good job, our community will support them, not because of some whiz-bang sign. If you want to discuss this, please call me at 435-3386. Thanks, Bob Finch 2/27/2012 Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson C'.....«. 1.... A -A.-.- Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:08 AM U U FEB 2 7 2012 LJ To: Scott Anderson Subject: CVS and our community TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Mr. Anderson, Obviously, this correspondence is in regard to the proposed CVS signs which could forever change the face of Tiburon. It is impossible for me to understand how the Town of Tiburon is allowing CVS to dictate what type of sign they will have in our community. This is the critical juncture in how future signs in Tiburon will be addressed. If the Town allows CVS to put up the signs that they want - despite the very reasonable objections of CITIZENS of Tiburon - there will be an unfortunate precedent set for future signs in the community. I urge you and the Town of Tiburon to show some backbone and reject all but the most unobtrusive sign for this store. It will be very obvious to the public that there is, in fact, a CVS store at that location without a garish lighted plastic sign. Please don't let this opportunity to establish our community standards both now and in the future. If CVS is allowed to impose their corporate will, in contrast to the norms of Tiburon, then there will be very little ability to influence the next chain store which decides they want to turn Tiburon into an extension of a Novato strip mall. Please stand up to CVS and represent your constituents, not an external one-size-fits-all corporate entity. Thank you. Long time Tiburon resident and taxpayer, Jay P. Andrews IT No. Z3 2/27/2012 D E G EE V E Page I of I Scott Anderson r TOWNt'f'TORNI=Y,S°OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON From: marcia mcgovern [marshmcgovern@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 4:56 PM To: Ann Danforth; Dan Watrous; Scott Anderson; Peggy Curran; Mayor, Jim Fraser Subject: Marin IJ Editorial FYI littp://www.marini-j.com/opinion/ei-I 9991409?IADID=Search-www.marinij.com-www.marinij .com Regards, Marcia 2/27/2012 :p 1III3IT N0. X(i P I Dr3 Editorial: Hue and cry erupts over color of Tiburon sign - Marin Independent Journal Page 1 of 2 I Ut'MM, .1 ?AMMwf It I I F1 ft *J I I Editorial: Hue and cry erupts over color of Tiburon sign Marin Independent Journal Editorial Posted: 02,21/2012 06:21:00 AM PST Over the years, when some towns decided to color-coordinate newsracks, our older orange ones did not match their palette of acceptable colors. We have been inclined to go along rather than fight for our preferred color. THE COLOR of the sign in front of the CVS store in downtown Tiburon has some residents seeing red, which is the last hue they want to see. Residents are circulating petitions because they don't want CVS/Pharmacy's red logo. CVS is digging in its heels, insisting that its corporate colors not be sacrificed to local tastes that aren't part of the town's codes. CVS should abandon this fight. Otherwise it risks getting off on the wrong foot in Tiburon. CVS is moving into what most locals call the old Safeway store along Tiburon Boulevard. The building, one of the largest downtown, has housed a number of markets over the years. In fact, when CVS's local predecessor, Longs, wanted to take over the spot, residents and officials objected and insisted the property be leased to another grocery store. Longs lost that fight. The last grocery store moved out months ago and the town has had a change of heart when it comes to a drug store tenant. So have residents. Their reservation now is the red signs CVS wants to put up. The IJ is familiar with such disputes. The color of CVS's signs is not the biggest issue facing the peninsula, but it has whipped up spirited debate in Tiburon and Belvedere. A local petition drive already has collected more than 200 signatures, indicating that more than a few people care about the signs. Last month, the Tiburon Design Review Board unanimously approved a permit for the CVS signs on the condition that the store use wood signs with white lettering and a gray background. CVS is asking the Town Council to reverse the design board's decision. The company says it has changed its color in a few i nstances where cities had aesthetic standards clearly detailed in their sign rules, but contends that's not the case in Tiburon. O IS HERE IIISIIII pl III ■II VIII 1 ~ I I $50 I II GIFT WIN A Print Powered By r ynamics EXHIBIT NO. -zg p, zo~3 http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci-I 9991409?IADID=Search-www.marinij. com-www.m... 2/27/2012 Editorial: Hue and cry erupts over color of Tiburon sign - Marin Independent Journal II rw~ #f1 The Town Council will hear the issue next month. CVS is moving into a prominent spot. The store, because of its size and location, stands out. The red lettering isn't necessary to find it. It is ironic that this spat comes at a time when Tiburon is working on plans to "revitalize" downtown. As one town official put it, the goal is to make downtown "a more vital and vibrant place." Apparently red is too vibrant for some residents. We suggest that CVS respect those who are going to be looking at its sign on a daily basis. Sure, residents probably will get used to it. But that is not exactly the most neighborly approach. This might be a time when it is wise to cater to the aesthetic tastes of future customers. If the customer is always right, why alienate some of them before you open your doors? H or". N HE I WWq F i Page 2 of 2 v IS HERE A wA$ 50 GIFT, CA-RD j Print Powered BY ,m' F ~-Dyna nicsu N0. Zq e. 3 &F http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_19991409?IADID=Search-www.marinij .com-www.m... 2/27/2012 Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Marti Andrews [martipandrews@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 8:59 AM To: Mayor, Jim Fraser; Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson Subject: CVS in Tiburon Hello Tiburon Council and Planning: n ~~Eoa~ D. Iiu FEB 272012 TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Once again I am writing about the garish red sign that CVS seems insistent upon putting in our lovely downtown. Please: 1. No sign on Beach Road! 2. A small, non-lit, painted white sign on Tiburon Blvd that fits in with the rest of town is OK. By the way, if CVS puts up even one large red lit sign, I will not shop there. Thank you, Marti Andrews martipandrews(a)_gmail.com 415.847.1200 F, E~TI11~1T NO. 2'r 2/27/201.2 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: fyreder@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:23 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Fwd: Signage- CVS Store Attachments: CVS Signage Examples.doc From: fyreder@comcast.net To: JSFraser1@comcast.net Cc: emmett@vikingind.com, rctib2@gmail.com, askalicenow@usa.net, standingstone@sbcglobal.net Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:21:38 AM Subject: Signage- CVS Store F1'~ L ~1 rED28202 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mayor Fraser, Vice Mayor O'Donnell, Councilmembers Collins, Fredericks and Doyle, I would like to express my appreciation and support for your efforts to insure the compatibility of the new CVS store with your charming town. We are currently engaged in a similar undertaking here in Sebastopol. It is oftentimes difficult to convince large development companies that their typical way isn't necessarily the best way to achieve a superior result. I have attached a document that depicts several examples of what could be considered "non-standard" signage that has been utilized by CVS at other locations. I hope that these examples are of assistance to you in your deliberations regarding the appeal by Armstrong Development Properties of your Design Review Board's determinations regarding signage at the new Tiburon location. I wish you and your, colleagues continued success in your efforts. Best regards, John Eder (707) 829-3298 fyreder@comcast.net f T NO. 2/28/2012 Charlotte, NC O~ Location unknown Buckeye, AZ T,D NO. P, '3 OF / Philadelphia, PA NO. { t Baldwin Park, FL Berkeley, CA Berkeley, CA 'i, soF7 Berkeley, CA Of course, if the applicant insists on "Corporate Signage", you could condition an additional architectural element that would serve to distract from the overbearing signs... Venice Beach, CA P; ~ Scott Anderson RECEIVED From: Geri Thayer [gerithayer@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:42 PM FrL- -B e2-) ~ , rZ Z) To: Mayor, Jim Fraser L Cc: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson PLANNING DIVISION Subject: CVS Sign May I put in my request for a wooden CVS sign in WHITE letters for both the main entrance and the drive thru signs and please No illumination. Thank you. Geri Thayer gerithayer@gmail.com Geri Thayer gerithayer@me.com T-f.T I` ~ r~-o. Zo7 Scott Anderson From: Peggy Curran Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:24 AM RECEIVED To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council); Scott Anderson; Dan Watrous Subject: FW: CVS signage FEB 28 2012 PLANNING DIVISION Hello, All: Barbara Meislin (aka Purple Lady) asked that I forward this message to you. Thanks Peggy -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Meislin [mailto:purpleladybythebay@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:53 PM To: Peggy Curran Subject: CVS signage A warm hello to you, dear Peggy Curran--I would like to add my name to the evergrowing list of Belvedere-Tiburon residents who respectfully but strongly recommend that the CVS sign should be in keeping with our small town environment, namely white letters on wood for the main entry and drive thru sign rather than red metal as proposed by corporate management. I believe as well, that there should be no exception for CVS as to the size of their sign (no greater than 32.5sf) and no illumination. It seems reasonable to me to request ( since it will really add nothing to aesthetics nor to sales )that the Beach Rd sign be eliminated altogether. What I believe would really add to future sales and the success of the store is a feeling by the community that management cares about being of service and not only about being an economically profitable venture. By not listening to the townspeople before even opening their doors, management has unfortunately created an environment of distrust and will surely encourage people to deliberately shop elsewhere. CVS is now IN our community. May I encourage them to be a viable part OF our community by being more sensitive to the reasonable wishes of the residents. Then perhaps we will all be winners. Please be kind enough to pass these comments on to Jim Fraser, our mayor, and to Scott Anderson with wises that reasonableness and good will----- will prevail.Best thoughts to you always. Barbara Meislin y~. T~ lJ a -j L.'IT 1 Scott Anderson From: Barbara Patten [bpatten539@sbcglobal.net] RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:00 PM To: Scott Anderson FEB 2 Subject: CVS PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mr. Anderson, Large "big box" stores such as CVS should not radically change our community. CVS should not have red metal signs! White letters on wood is the only answer for the entry of the store and the drive through. As for size, nothing should be greater than 32.5 square feet. Also, no illumination is necessary. The 9th Circuit Court decision gives you the tools to insist that CVS follow the desires of the community. Stand up for your community. Thank you. Barbara Patten 528 San Rafael Avenue Belvedere,CA 94920 ~ , 2ct 11 NO. 1 Diane Crane laco From: Charles Reite [charlesreite@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:33 PM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: CVS sign appeal Attachments: CVS Council Statement.pa9es E 06 E ~ V E FE8 29 Z012 I TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON CVS Council ;tatement.pages (2.. Dear Diane, I have attached a Statement that I want to submit on behalf of CVS,s appeal of the DRB sign requirements. My wife, Chris Koehler, tells me that today may be the last day to submit statements. Please let me know if you received this and if it can be included in the record for whenever the CVS sign appeal is on the calendar. I am out of town but my cellphone is and I am monitoring my email. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Chuck Reite Tiburon EXHIBIT NO.-30 - p 1 i mot= q D V E * 202 Statement in Support of CVS Appeal TOWN CLERK Related to the DRB sign requirements TOWN OF TIBURON This Statement is in support of CVS's appeal from the decision of the DRB to place restrictions on their signage which are beyond the requirements of the Tiburon sign regulations. I will be out of town when the appeal is heard and I request that this Statement be considered by the Council and made part of the record. Ever since the last pharmacy went out of business (longer ago than most can remember) there has been a public clamor for a pharmacy in Tiburon. CVS is attempting to fill that prominent need. CVS has been subjected to very rigorous and prolonged public scrutiny and town staff review in its attempt to bring the long awaited pharmacy to Tiburon up to the Jan. 19 DRB meeting. At that meeting the DRB issued requirements for signage beyond the published town sign regulations. The old "Safeway" property has been a vacant eyesore in a very prominent location on Tiburon Blvd. greeting all visitors and residents for a long time since Delano's failed and closed. This abandoned commercial property and several other closed and vacant properties have caused great concern and consternation about the commercial viability of downtown Tiburon amongst residents and town officials alike. To its credit the Council and staff have attempted to address this very visible problem with numerous paid consultants and citizen committees. Within this background of serious concern over economic viability of downtown Tiburon CVS has entered a lease to turn the abandoned eyesore into a full service drug store and pharmacy. I have attended some of the public meetings and am aware that the town process has been rigorous with serious give and take on all sides which resulted in-what should have been a final approval at the Jan. 19 DRB meeting. CVS has invested huge sums of money to turn the abandon property into what they hope will be an attractive economically viable and valuable commercial asset to the community. CVS has complied with the numerous town demands and changes to what they believe is necessary to be a viable retail drug store in the 21st century. (For example; a more limited drive-thru which is for the convenience of its patrons and Tiburon residents.) More importantly to the sign issue at hand, they have complied with the published Tiburon sign requirements. It is not proper, or likely within the authority, of the DRB to force them to go beyond the written, legal sign regulations. Tiburon does not need any additional legal expense to defend what clearly appears to be an arbitrary and capricious requirement beyond the existing sign regulation. Unfortunately, the town has been down that road before with disastrous financial consequences to the budget. Only because of a very vocal and overwrought minority of people packing what was to be a routine DRB meeting were these arbitrary and capricious requirements Z vF imposed. The primary "activist" (who is not even a Tiburon resident, taxpayer or voter) claims that "There is strong opposition to the sign..." in a recent Ark article. It is much more likely that there is strong support for CVS turning what was a very prominent blighted, abandon commercial property into the much desired and long awaited pharmacy providing needed services to the community and sales tax to Tiburon. It would be unfair and unwise to let a small (overly sensitized to color) group of activists disenfranchise the large number of Tiburon residents and taxpayers who are not overly traumatized by red aluminum letters on a sign and want the store to open. Unless the town wants to embark on a costly and time consuming poll of all of the residents and voters in Tiburon, it had better not use as a justifying finding of fact for denying CVS's reasonable and compliant sign request that a vocal group including non- residents is evidence of a "strong community opposition to the sign" as requested by CVS. CVS has complied with the existing sign requirements of size and lighting. It has even provided a rational reason for the use of aluminum instead of wood as being more durable and lower maintenance for exterior exposure. The color red is a distinguishing trademark for CVS which it is legally entitled to use. Can anyone remember what colors were in the Delano, Bell, or Safeway sign's? Very likely red or some other color which would also be offensive to the overly sensitized activists who object to red was in their signs. There is an underlying, but unstated, complaint by the activist group. That is a serious prejudice against anything but a "Mom and Pop" commercial enterprise in Tiburon. While everyone is entitled to there opinion, they are not entitled to force that opinion on everyone else. It is an inescapable economic fact that it is very difficult to successfully operate a thinly capitalized "Mom and Pop" business endeavor in today's real world. Witness the failed and closed storefronts in downtown Tiburon. A building and commercial property the size of the "Safeway" site simply cannot be successfully operated by a Mom and Pop operation as nostalgic an wishful as that concept may be. A couple of procedural points must also be addressed prior to the public hearing (or hearings) on the appeals. The first is the standing of non-Tiburon residents to petition the Council (think the Occupy Movement.) A second is limiting the issues. Will the entire CVS permit be reopened and rehashed after CVS has expended substantial improvement money (in detrimental reliance of approval) which has benefited the town and operating in good faith with the process? Or, will the issue be strictly limited to the sign issue appealed? I certainly hope the latter is the case. In summary, the Council should find in favor of CVS's reasonable sign requests which meet existing regulations and overturn the arbitrary and capricious DRB requirements. If the Town of Tiburon truly wants to create a "vital and vibrant place" for commercial activity, it should not further burden CVS. Pc 3 6F V The dominant public perception is that Tiburon is a very difficult and unfriendly place to open a business. A decision to pander to a small group of over sensitized activists, despite CVS's compliance, would only serve to emphasize and further that widely held negative anti-business perception. Such an anti-business decision would make the difficult task of creating a vital and vibrant downtown even more difficult to attract business in the future. C) ~C)Fy RECE Rf "D FEB 2 D i Vi S i O N From: jtcoffin@aol.com [mailto:jtcoffin@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:00 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: CVS sign Dear Ms Curran, Please help us keep the quiet tone of our town by insisting the CVS signs stay white on grey and have NO illumination. Thank you. Julie Coffin a~~-, 3 Scott Anderson I V =I From: Maureen Filmer [m.filmer@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:15 AM FEB L C To: Scott Anderson Subject: CVS Signage PLANNING DIVISION Hello Scott - I'm writing you today to add my voice to the requirement that CVS' request for red signage be denied. Only Grey and White signage should be approved and no signage at all on Beach Road. Also, I would like CVS to be prohibited from illuminating their signs. I urge you to include this in your weekly staff report to the Town Council. Thanks so much. Maureen Filmer 245 Round Hill Road Tiburon 1~, Scott Anderson _r% r- e% r-111 FPM 9.¢6ift- ~w From: Azita Mujica-Beavers [azimomu@gmail.com] r_ Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:29 AM FEUQ 2 4 C To: Scott Anderson Subject: Sure support NO RED and NO light sign MANNING DIVISION I will be out of town and will not be able to attend the meeting. Strongly oppose any red or light or large signs of CVS. It needs to be a sign of wood of the natural wood or at the most white color. They need to understand and respect our attempt to preserve our downtown charm and our views. Thanks Azita Mujica-Beavers 415-2692028 53 Eastview Ave. Corinthian Island T0. 1 RECEIVED FEg r . PLANNING DIVISION From: Daniel Goldberg [mailto:dgoldbergsf@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:13 AM To: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson Cc: Adrea Goldberg; marshmcgovern@gmail.com Subject: CVS Sign Application Peggy and Scott, I am writing to voice my concern over the ongoing appeal process regarding the CVS signage proposal. I am not only a resident at 143 Esperanza Street less than 13500 feet from this store, I am also a commercial real estate developer with years of experience working with tenants such as CVS and Walgreens. The notion of a glowing red sign in a location like downtown Tiburon is insulting to all of us. CVS chose this location for one simple reason: Average Household Incomes on this peninsula are off the charts! This is purely a destination location and their signage will have minimal impact on their sales. Furthermore, if you allow CVS to have illuminated or even colored signage shouldn't you allow the entire Boardwalk shopping center to glow like the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree? Please hold firm for the sake of the community, light pollution from a national retailer with over 7,000 stores in America is a bad precedent to set. Thanks for taking a hard look at this issue and coming to the same conclusion that other small towns have come to in Southern Marin County and keep their signs white and not illuminated. I also thank you for your ongoing commitment to serve the community as members of the planning commission. Regards, Daniel Goldberg 143 Esperanza Street Tiburon CA 94920 RECEIVED r-r r P+ r', I- L L G L i PLANNING DIVISION From: Carol Berg [mailto: carol bergc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:07 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: we support the local effort to eliminate or reduce the proposed Cvs signage. white or grey letters are certainly the norm for the town - why would we allow red neon? No one will be visiting town just to go to the Cvs and those of us who live here certainly know where it is there is no need for excessively large or bright signage and absolutely no need for a sign on Beach Rd. Thank you for your attention to this matter - Carol Berg ECEIVED FEB PLANNING DIVISION From: loyprice@aol.com [mailto:loyprice@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:11 AM To: Peggy Curran; "maiIto:sanderson"@ci.tiburon.ca.us Subject: CVS Sign To Whom It May Concern: I have been a resident of the lovely town of Tiburon for 20 years and appreciate the quaintness of our little piece of Paradise. I would much prefer a wood sign at the new CVS Pharmacy rather than the typical bright red sign. I am looking forward to the opening of the new pharmacy but feel the sign should fit in aesthetically with the other business signs in Tiburon. Thank you for your consideration. Loy Price J ' ` " \ 3& RECEIVED C' FE C r w PLANNING DIVISION -----Original Message From: Georgene Usher [mailto:gigiusher@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:10 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: CVS signage Dear Ms. Curran I am writing to express my concern for granting CVS permission to place inappropriate red signs on their building on Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon has had a long held a tradition of a village like atmosphere due mainly in part by it's active and alert community to keep it that way. As a resident of the Tiburon community for 40 years I know the appeal to visitors and tourists to come here is that very same non- commercial town like quality. We are inundated with inappropriate signs everywhere and certainly all residents and consumers here in Tiburon will well know where CVS is located. I am appealing for common sense ascetics. Thank you Georgene Usher February 29 2012 Sent from my iPad s IT No.-37- Page 1 of 1 REEll V &E D Scott Anderson From: Shelby Allen [seallen7@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:35 AM PLANNING DIVISION To: Scott Anderson; Peggy Curran Subject: CVS Signage Please add my voice to the chorus of Tiburon residents who are concerned about the proposed CVS signage. The Town of Tiburon has made strides in keeping our community character charming and low key when it comes to merchant signage and I believe we should continue along that path. CVS signage needs to whisper, not shout. I do not believe that just because there is a powerful lobby to allow them to have bigger and brighter signage, our city officials should cave to their demands. Please keep the charm of Tiburon intact by being judicious in approving this sign. We are not trying to rob CVS of its corporate identity, only tone it down to fit our vision of Tiburon. Remember, it may be their corporate i.d., but it's our town. If you spend time driving around Tiburon at dusk or at night, it's readily apparent that glowing neon and backlit signage is neither appropriate, nor is it needed. We know where CVS is. They do not need to have a mega-watt sign to call attention to themselves as they would in a strip mall setting where signage guidelines seem to speak to louder and brighter. Specifically: 1. Do we really need RED LETTERS when white would be more in keeping with the character of our town? There is precedent for CVS to have white letters in their signage. Lit up, red lettering would set a distasteful precedent for Tiburon's merchant signage. Let's not start with this project. 2. Please DO NOT APPROVE HALO-LIT OR NEON SIGNAGE and certainly not on the roof or top front of the building. Follow the example of Woodlands Market and place signage on the side of the doors. And, in white. Building lighting will take care of lighting on the sign. 3. One sign on Tibgron Blvd. is plenty. We don't need another on Beach Rd. What we're talking about is a pharmacy in a small town, not a casino at the crossroads of the world. Please listen closely to the citizens of Tiburon. We truly care about where we live and this outpouring from citizens regarding this project is something to be proud of. I think you'll find that we want a people-friendly home town without the trappings of a commericial mall environment. In the long run, CVS will be doing themselves a big favor to listen to what residents want and act accordingly. If ever there was a case of one size not fitting all, this is it. Continued citizen acrimony is not conducive to good business. CVS should listen. If they do, the outcome will be better for all participants. The team at City Hall has been very responsive to the citizenry in the past and we hope you will come through for us on this one. Thanks for listening. T~ '.G 2/29/2012 Scott Anderson From: Samantha Parent [samwalravens@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:24 AM To: Scott Anderson Subject: Please no big red CVS sign! Thank you Scott for counting this as my vote. Keep Tiburon quaint. No big red CVS sign. Samantha Walravens 342 Blackfield Drive Tiburon Samantha Parent Walravens Writer, the Huffington Post Author/Editor, TORN: True Stories of Kids, Career & Modern Motherhood (NY Times Booklist Pick) Www.samanthawalravens.com RECEIVED FEB 29 2012 PLANNING DIVISION _,f~T NO. FISHER & KONG LLP CATHERINE M. FISHER ❖ ROBERT ROSENBERG ❖ RAYMOND KONG February 29, 2012 Via Electronic Mail Ann Danforth Town of Tiburon Re: Appeals of CVS signs Dear Ms. Danforth: RECEIVED FEB 2 9 2 PLANNING DIVISION I understand that two appeals of the Design Review Board's ("DRB") decision regarding exterior signs for the new Tiburon CVS will be heard on March 7, 2012, by the Town Council. The matter appears to be hotly contested with many residents of Belvedere and Tiburon voicing their opinions. It is clear to me that you will play a large role as the Town Attorney in assisting the Town Council to understand what authority it has as it relates to the CVS sign permit. In reviewing the Tiburon Municipal Code Section regarding signs, it seems that Mr. Watrous incorrectly informed the DRB that it lacked the ability to deny CVS's request for a sign on Beach Road, and that it lacked the ability to require CVS to utilize a smaller sign. Such an interpretation would render the purpose of the Sign code irrelevant, which they clearly are not. 16A.110 of the Tiburon Municipal Code makes clear that the purposes of this chapter includes protecting open spaces (b), preserving visual appearances and the town aesthetics (c), and to promote and implement the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon general plan (g). As such, the Town has the authority to deny any permit, even if it meets all other criteria, if the sign contradicts or defeats any of the above stated purposes. 16A.515(b) states that a sign permit application may be approved subject to conditions, as long as those conditions are required by this chapter or some other applicable law, rule or regulation. What other law, rule, or regulation is more important than the very purpose contained within the Sign ordinance itself? As such, a condition such as eliminating the Beach Rd. sign altogether would be allowable. I am aware that CVS has raised issues regarding the Lanham Act. A ninth circuit case decided in 1998 does suggest that the DRB did not have the authority to require CVS to change its sign from red letters to white letters. However, in Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe, the Court did determine that the Lanham Act "does not require municipalities to 1970 BROADWAY, SUITE 1040, OAKLAND, CA 94612 • PHONE (510) 645-5880 • FAX (510) 380-5150 EMAIL: raykong@fisherkong.com WEB: fisherkong.com 1~y y NO. P I lp~ ANN DANFORTH FEBRUARY 29, 2012 PAGE 2 allow business to display their registered marks. A municipality retains the power to prohibit the use of a registered mark altogether. This is so because section 1121(b) speaks only to the alteration of a mark. (1998) 141 F.3d 1295. The Court also stated that the municipality also retains the power to determine what size the sign should be. Therefore, while the Town Council may not order CVS to change its trademark lettering from red to white, it may do any of the following: 1) Disallow the Beach Road sign in its entirety; 2) Reduce the size of any allowed signs; or 3) Reject the sign permit in its entirety. Alternatively, the Town Council can use the above options as leverage to obtain some form of compromise. While the Town Council cannot order CVS to use white lettering, as the DRB required and which the community wants, the Town Council can suggest to CVS that its permit as written will be denied but that the Town Council would approve an alternative sign permit submitted by CVS which contained white lettering. This would get around the Lanham Act issue because the Town would not be ordering an alteration of the trademark but allowing CVS to voluntarily alter it to obtain approval. If the Town Council does not believe it has the authority to regulate the number of signs, the size of the signs, or the ability to reject the permit altogether, then an unfortunate precedent will be set where other big box stores will turn Tiburon's open space into billboards. As I see it, you have an important decision to make ahead of you. Does the Town's sign ordinance have any value to protect the Town's character and aesthetics or does it only serve to set guidelines as to the maximum size of signs? I am hopeful that the will and voice of the people and not the bullying antics of a corporation prevails. Good luck with the upcoming hearing. Very truly yours, FISHER & KONG LLP 'i E Raymond E. Kong `t C) pF[; 2 OFz Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Peter Engler [petergengler@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:42 AM To: Scott Anderson RECEIVED Cc: Carole Engler; marshmcgovern@gmail.com FFB 29 202 Subject: CVS Signage PLANNING DIVISION Peggy and Scott- This email is written in support of mitigating the negative aspects of the proposed CVS red signage in front and to the side of the new store. The City of Tiburon and the City of Belvedere and our citizens should prevail regarding any aspect of our environment including store signage. We owe no company the right to insist on their "corporate signage guidelines" in our fair cities. I am frankly, amazed that CVS would take such aggressive steps which can only antagonize their eventual customer base. Please "hold the line" on behalf of your constituents. Thank you. Peter Peter G. Engler Engler Career Group (cell) 415-601-2444 www.env,lereareergroLip.com "Strategies for Individual and Team Success" _ F No.- 1 u -f 2/29/2012 Scott Anderson From: Bill [wtdowns@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:00 PM To: Scott Anderson FEB L t L; I Subject: No Red Sign PLANNING DIVISION Scott, I am writing because I believe Tiburon does not have to become another tacky town like San rafael or Novato. Do not permit the red sign, and do not permit a sign on the side. We all know it's a CVS - a small painted sign is more than enough. Sincerely, Bill Downs Tiburon Resident F No. 1 Page 1 of 1 Scott Anderson From: Susan Brautovich [sbrautovich@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:51 PM RECEIVED To: Scott Anderson F E L C, 12 Subject: CVS signage issue PLANNING DIVISION Hi Scott, I wanted to throw my voice in with the many others who feel strongly that the signage CVS has proposed is excessive, unnecessary, unattractive, and out of character with Tiburon's downtown. I feel strongly that • The CVS signage be white on grey wood only ...NOT red metal. • No illumination for signage is needed ...there is more than ample light already on the building • There is absolutely no need for a sign on Beach Road. • If CVS will not voluntarily offer white on grey signage and insists on their trademark red signs, then the signs should be moved off the front pillars and confined to the wall face to the left of the front doors. Thank you very much for your consideration. Susan Brautovich LCOTHA Board Member 1819 Mar West St Tiburon CA 94920 w,-VT-11-13-T NO. 3 2/29/2012