August 1, 2007

Chris Candell City of Oakland Zoning Division 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, #2114 Oakland CA 94612

Re: Case File Number DS07-031 Kaiser Master Sign Plan

Dear Mr. Candell,

There are both process and design problems with this proposal. I hereby request a meeting to discuss this proposal, and would want to include some representatives of PANIL and KENIC (Kaiser Expansion Neighborhood Impact Coalition) at such a meeting.

Process/application problems

1. While staff has categorized this as CEQA exempt, “construction of minor accessory structures, on premise signs,” this application does not seem to qualify for such an exemption. Many of the signs are in fact, not on premise, but are on public rights of way, all the way from 27th Street to the Highway 24 overpasses. These rights of way include public sidewalks, public street light poles, traffic signal poles and arms, and even the historic Mosswood Park grounds.
There are at least 58 signs on the application, whose square footage totals approximately 4,399.3 square feet (this assumes many signs are 1-sided where it was unclear whether they were building mounted or ground mounted). These are not "minor" numbers. Of that, it is unclear how many are on public space in addition to the pole-mounted signs.

2. There is no summary sheet which allows the reviewer to understand how many signs are in any given stretch of a block. With 58+ signs, it is impossible to visualize. This should be provided immediately for public review. The design sheets were obviously produced on computer, and this task will take minutes. In fact, a PDF of the entire package would be extremely helpful for public review.

3. There are no elevations showing how each sign will look installed. Indeed, 16 signs are labeled “ground mounted or building mount.” There is no way to comment on the appearance of of these signs and their placement without adequate information.

4. There is no perspective of the street intersections depicting how the signs will look in place. The one composite photo of a monument sign at Broadway and MacArthur is inadequate; all signs proposed for that intersection and its related sight lines should be depicted.

5. Any signage proposed for 3900 Broadway (the landmark Kings Daughters Home) or the historic Mosswood Park should be reviewed by the Landmarks Board. Any signage proposed for Mosswood Park should also be sent to the Parks Advisory Board.

Design comments

1. Overarching consideration in this design proposal should be the idea that this facility is surrounded by mostly small-scale residential use and pedestrian-oriented commercial use (on Piedmont Ave); this is not an isolated, self-contained “campus.” Size, placement and lighting should not be allowed to intrude into residential view lines. And pedestrian comfort and safety should be paramount.

2. There are far too many signs. They will become a forest of visual clutter, too much to be useful and probably even enough to be a dangerous distraction.

3. As a graphic artist and illustrator, this writer’s professional judgement is that there is way too much information to be readable from an auto. They should be resized for pedestrians.

4. The proposed skyline facade signs on the new hospital and building 2 are more about the marketing concepts of “branding” and advertising than about wayfinding. They are offensive billboard-like intrusions into the skyline, visible from huge swaths of the residential neighborhood, especially the slope from Piedmont Avenue up to Fairmount. These two buildings are considerably taller than any of the surrounding residential structures; architectural form telegraphs function. Street level signage labels buildings. If any skyline sign is to be placed, it should be a single sign facing the freeway.

5. Signs are sized and designed appropriately for a suburban campus, where the driver is circulating in a huge internal parking lot and can slow down to read a complex sign. The speed and density of traffic on Broadway and on MacArthur does not allow this.
Building labels and street numbers should be mounted on the respective structures. All other information contained on directional monument signs should be on smaller, pedestrian-oriented signs. these signs should have poles supporting them such that one can see if someone is on the other side.

6. Pedestrian comfort and safety should be paramount. The monument signs are big enough for someone to hide behind. No sign should be placed on public sidewalks or public right-of-way. Additionally, signs should be far enough off the sidewalk with a paved surface for standing while reading, so that pedestrians reading them are not bottle-necking busy sidewalks.

7. The landmark Kings Daughters Home buildings at 3900 Broadway should receive different treatment from that proposed for new or more ordinary buildings. Plastic sign materials internally lit are completely inappropriate. On sheet 4, there is no indication of whether the signs are proposed to be building mounted on these buildings (labeled building 4) or ground mounted. We would point out that the front wall and landscaping of the Kings Daughters is an important part of the historic fabric and should be treated differently than other landscaping. We would also point out that sign location 62 faces a small residential street, and that both the size proposed and internally lit plastic is completely inappropriate here as well. While there is a back-door pedestrian route for staff, little or no public traffic should be coming from this direction.

8. No sign should be placed on the corner of Mosswood Park. It will look like Kaiser owns the park. It is also unsafe, as it will obstruct views of the traffic and pedestrians, and, in a park that has a history of problems with drug dealing and related crime, the sign is big enough to hide behind. By the time a driver is at that intersection, other Kaiser-owned corners are visible.
If Kaiser does not withdraw that sign from the proposal, it is PANIL’s understanding that any structure in the park is to be reviewed by the Parks Advisory Board.

9. When one gets off Highway 24 at Telegraph with a medical emergency, Alta Bates and Childrens Hospitals are actually much closer. If Kaiser is allowed a logo-identified sign there, how many signs are to be placed ultimately to identify each hospital, and what is the saturation point at which people will not be able to read the information? The same problem exists with identification of Kaiser starting at 27th Street (where Pill Hill is closer). Again, this is about branding and advertising as much as about wayfinding.

To get this submitted by the end of the business day, we will end here. We may submit further comments per the voluntary deadline extension agreed to by Kaiser and the city yesterday. In case the oaklandnet system rejects attachments, this will also be sent as an attachment in a separate message.

Sincerely,

Valerie Winemiller PANIL Steering Committee member