Design review commission tables master sign program for 101 W. Valley Blvd., asks for clearer colors and translations

The Design Review Commission on March 23 voted to continue consideration of a master sign program for a six‑story mixed‑use development at 101 West Valley Boulevard (Planning Case MSP25‑003), asking the applicant to return with clearer color mockups, verified address hierarchy and an accurate Chinese translation for permanent signage.

Staff presented the master sign program for a 2.27‑acre site that includes a 225‑room hotel, approximately 87 residential units and roughly 32,000 square feet of commercial space. The program establishes criteria for tenant signage (channel letters, halo/face lit or reverse channel), maximum text heights (16 inches for text, 20 inches for logos), sign area limits and an initial palette of face colors (black, white, red, green and yellow). Staff recommended tightening the criteria to improve consistency, including standardizing return/edge colors and reconsidering some proposed sign locations.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns during discussion. Several members said the proposed palette (including bright yellow and green) risked a disjointed, ‘legoland’ effect and urged a more muted, high‑contrast approach for legibility from moving vehicles. Vice Chair Salove asked for an accurate translation of the Chinese characters shown in the package and said permanent hotel identification should have a clear typographic hierarchy (hotel name dominant, secondary text subordinate). Commissioners also flagged wayfinding issues tied to multiple addresses shown on the package (101 vs. 105 Valley Boulevard) and asked the applicant to verify which address should be prominent for emergency response and pedestrian wayfinding.

The applicant’s representative said the building has multiple addresses and that ownership will verify whether to consolidate the main displayed address; he agreed to correct an erroneous tenant font on the presentation and to amend the Chinese characters if they do not accurately read as the hotel name. Staff and commissioners requested renderings and mockups that place proposed sign faces and colors against the existing façade so the commission can better judge legibility and visual impact.

Commissioner Lopez moved to continue MSP25‑003 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to provide clearer color/graphic mockups, a verified address hierarchy, and a corrected translation for the Chinese characters; Commissioner Tu seconded. The roll call vote was 4–0 in favor (Commissioner Chang absent). The commission asked that the applicant return with permanent‑sign color samples for hotel identification, a clearer tenant sign standard, and simulated views showing how the permitted colors will read against the building at different times of day.