The Design Review Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 1st, is in session.
If there are any members of the public present who would like to speak, please fill out a
speaker's card and give it to the commission secretary.
Please state your name and address and who you represent when you come up to the microphone
and please use the microphone.
Thank you.
Are there any items of consideration that the commissioners want to add or bring up
Okay and yeah do roll call sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Newsom appears to be
running late. Commissioner Prose? Commissioner Case? Vice-chair Riley?
Chair Basting? Yes. Thank you we have a quorum. Okay so are there any items on
the consent calendar. Nothing on the consent calendar today. All right, thank
you. Do we have any public communications that are not on the agenda this evening?
Okay, seeing none, do we have any ex parte communications that we need to
disclose? Okay. Then let's begin the public hearing study session. Good
Good evening Chair and members of the Design Review Commission.
Is this on?
Can't hear it on my end.
Yeah.
All right.
Curtis Sawyer, Associate Planner.
Tonight we're going to get into something a little bit different, something exciting.
It's not just your typical residential or commercial design review subject up for discussion
and deliberation tonight.
Tonight we get to expand our horizons and talk signage.
Exciting stuff.
have been working diligently to craft and revise our sign ordinance that protects community
charm and character, brings balance, encourages creativity, and even introduces technology.
You and the public may be wondering, why now? Why are we here this evening? To answer that,
it's really been quite some time since we've had the opportunity to provide a comprehensive
overall an update to our sign ordinance.
Now, jumping in, the product before you this evening
is our most recent version of the draft sign ordinance.
Our goal tonight is to present it before you,
obtain your comments and feedback,
and ultimately take your feedback and feedback
from our working group, stakeholders,
and members of the community,
and ultimately go before the planning commission
for further consideration,
and then ultimately adoption before the Council.
With that, I would like to introduce our consultants,
Michael Gibbons and Nikki Zancheta with Mintier-Harnish.
They're here to review the draft with you,
go over our presentation.
With that, we also have about eight questions
lined up specifically.
So with that, I'd like to introduce the consultant team
and come on up, guys.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Niki Zancetta.
I'm an associate planner with Mentor Harness,
and with me is Michael Gibbons.
He's the project manager through this project.
And so, as Curtis said, tonight,
we want to go through the sign ordinance
that we've been working on over the past several months.
And just an overview
of what we're gonna be talking about tonight.
We wanna just go over a background
of where the project's been, where we are now,
how we got to this evening,
and that includes what we've done for community outreach,
and then also going over the actual changes
that we've made to the sign ordinance,
and then going through any additional questions
and clarification that we wanna get from commission
before moving forward with another draft.
And at the end of the presentation,
we'll just go over the next steps
and what we can expect for the rest of the process.
So just a quick overview of the project.
So the overall purpose of this project,
as Curtis was also mentioning,
so we are really looking to just modernize
the sign ordinance,
bring it into current best practices in the industry,
and just really meeting Walnut Creek's business needs
and creating more flexibility and creativity
in the sign ordinance.
And the last time that the code,
the sign ordinance was fully overhauled
and updated was back in 1992.
Since then, there's been a few minor updates,
but this is again our chance to really get into it
and make any significant changes
that the city would like to see
and bringing it into kind of a modern,
contemporary version of the sign ordinance.
So the goals are to one, clarify the intent of the ordinance
and really what the city's role is in ensuring
that signs are meeting the city's expectations,
are reducing clutter and making sure
to ensure the public health and safety.
And we also wanna incorporate as part of the goals,
just ways to make the sign ordinance more flexible
while meeting business needs
and still maintaining the character of Walnut Creek.
And so, again, our kind of main intent of this
is to really create flexibility and recognize
that signs are an important part of the business community
and also recognizing that the city has
the primary responsibility of really ensuring
that the signs aren't impeding on any of the neighborhood character, any of the safety,
and reducing just the overall aesthetic and visual clutter that signs can have an impact
on for the community.
And so our project approach has been to, we've established a working group as a primary advising
body for this initial draft that's before you this evening.
The working group consisted of a member of the DRC, which was Phil, who is not in attendance
yet.
It sounds like he's on his way.
And then we also had a member from Planning Commission as well.
And the role of the working group was really just to we would go back and forth with them
with different drafts.
They would provide feedback.
We would go through discussion questions similar to what we're doing tonight, and we've gone
through that a couple times.
And then we also wanted to solicit feedback from the public.
We did more of a focused public outreach mainly to the business community and property owners
just because they are the ones that are interacting with the sign ordinance more directly and
wanting to understand where the shortfalls were.
And we also created a new webpage through the city's website just to provide information
about the update.
We also included social media outreach
and did several working sessions internally
with city staff.
So the overall project timeline,
this was originally started back in 2019.
That's when there was some initial outreach to stakeholders
and working group meetings and staff created
kind of a punch list of things
they would like to see updated in the ordinance.
Then we all know that the pandemic happened
kind of threw a wrench in the project, the priorities for the city shifted, but in 2024
we restarted the project and at that point we took a whole new approach to the expectation
of the project and it was kind of shifted to be more business oriented outreach and
we restarted the project with a city tour and reassessed what the city staff wanted
to see as part of this update.
And then we had an initial study session for with the DRC to go over what they would like
to see as expectations and goals of this project and then establish the working group.
And then shortly after that we started our community outreach which was in the form of
mainly an online survey for business owners and property owners.
And once we did community outreach, we then started drafting the code and went through
several iterations of the draft, and that was when we went back and forth with the working
group, and we continued to update the ordinance through that process.
And through three different working group meetings, we then started, we're here tonight
with our study session to go over this draft.
And the next steps will be to revise the draft based on your feedback tonight, and then going
to Planning Commission and City Council for their review.
So to go over the outreach that we did with the business community, again, it was in the
form of an online questionnaire.
We received a total of 23 responses, which I know is a little bit low, but it was more
of a targeted outreach to business owners and property owners and through the Business
Association.
So it was kind of a widespread of the different types of businesses, from entertainment to
health and wellness, to professional and retail services.
And there was a lot of different property types that were covered, including kind of
business parks, which is a whole different type of property with signage and shopping
centers to stand alone storefronts.
And the overall themes that we started to see from this feedback from the business community
was really wanting more flexibility and just recognizing that the sign ordinance was a
a little bit outdated and wanting to have provisions
that encourage more visibility and allowed
them to be more creative with their signage
and incorporating their branding.
And the four key areas that we divided this feedback into
was a priority for visibility and location, A-frame signs,
which are a huge topic of conversation in the community,
size and design flexibility and process improvements.
So for the administrative process.
For visibility, the key things that business owners found
were important were just visibility from the street
and sidewalk, that's how people come into their businesses
and so that's a key focus for what they wanna be able
to do with signs and what they wanna see
in the sign ordinance is promoting visibility
from the street.
and then also requesting for updates
to allow more signage on different building sides,
on upper floors and at intersections.
So working group feedback to this theme
that we were seeing from the business community
was requiring directories
to allow for additional A-frame signs
and upper floor setbacks
and set for upper floor and setback businesses
and promoting visibility at the ground level,
especially in the downtown retail area
where there's a lot more pedestrian traffic,
and being mindful of any light pollution
or visual clutter that signs can create
when you add too many signs to a building,
or if you, it seems signs are getting brighter and brighter,
so making sure that there's no,
it's not impeding on any nearby residential uses.
For A-frame signs or temporary signs in the ordinance,
referred to them as portable signs just to be a little bit more all-encompassing.
Business owners buying A-frame signs are really important to their business and
making sure that they can have promotional events, they can have
more visibility from the street, especially if they're a small storefront,
and they were really requesting clearer and more flexible rules around A-frame
signs about how to get them when they're allowed and what the design of them
needs to be to to meet the city's needs. The working group did agree that their
A-frame signs should be allowed but there should definitely be some guard
rails on them so including making sure that they are in fact temporary in
nature that they are removed at the end of the day and stored away that they're
not essentially a permanent sign that is on the side of the street. And developing
design standards to minimize the visual impact of A-frame.
So having a size limit that you don't have a massive A-frame sign outside of your business.
And then also addressing the enforcement issue of when can the city remove a sign?
What's the process for that?
The other category and main theme is size and design flexibility.
And this is really where we've made a lot of changes in the sign ordinance.
But the business owners were really focused on the size and quantity wanting to expand
how large signs could be and how many signs they could have.
Also wanting to make sure the design standards for signs didn't impede them using their branding
or logos and making sure that they could incorporate that.
And then having that design flexibility where what the standards aren't overly prescriptive.
And there was a mention of wanting to make sure that their signs are consistent with
the community's character and using these standards to make sure that their signs can
meet the community character and aesthetic that the city is looking for.
And so the working group, they wanted to see an establishment of pedestrian-oriented sign
standards specifically to the downtown pedestrian zone and explore the use of overlay zones
for form-based codes regarding flexibility and adaptability of sign standards, modifying
the size and height standards where appropriate, so expanding height and sign area where it
could be incorporated without increasing visual clutter, and providing more flexibility, especially
with master sign programs. A lot of master sign programs end up being outdated and it
can be difficult for businesses to have signs that comply with their master sign program
but are also meeting their business needs. Then establishing a scheduled update for when
those master sign programs need to be updated and incentivizing those to be updated as well.
For the process improvements, the business owners did feel that the ordinance could be
more clear, use less jargon and just have a clear outline of what the process is for
different signed permits and how to go through a minor deviation process and sign exceptions
as well.
So, through the working group there was suggestion for creating a central online hub for signs
and making sure that we have clear direction of what the sign standards are and what the
requirements are and how to go through the sign permit process and then finding ways
for the city to help users, especially first time users, through the sign permit process.
So just before I start getting into the overview of the amendments that we've made and the
changes we've made. Does anybody have any questions regarding the process that
we've gone through for the project so far? We're gonna save the questions for
the end. Okay, thank you. Okay, so just to get started, kind of an overall change that
we have made is reorganizing and clarifying the sign ordinance as a whole.
So this is included in just using consistent language and terminology
throughout the sign ordinance and using terminology and language that is consistent with best
practices, what's used consistently with other cities, and then adding, making sure we're
comprehensive in the definitions that we're including, and making sure that everything
that we're mentioning in the ordinance has a corresponding definition for clarity.
We've also added several new graphics.
several tables, all meant to help create as visual aids and just clarity for what the
written standards are.
For administration and review authority, we have really expanded administrative approval
and trying to reduce how many signed permits have to go to DRC for approval, and we really
really wanted to retain the DRC approval for signs that are either special or very out
of the ordinary or things such as freeway-oriented signs or the master sign programs.
Those larger things that can have more of an impact on the community.
Everything else we tried to really pull into approval from the community development director.
So one of those modifications that we made that it gives more authority to the director
is a minor deviation.
So this minor deviation approval process is really to allow the community development
director to allow some limited deviation from the signed standards established in the ordinance
and those are, we've made it, so it's up to 20 percent of any maximum standards, so say
a sign area if someone wants to increase it by 20% or less, then that can go through just
an administrative approval from the director, or if they want to add one additional sign
that's already permitted in the zone and the sign type.
So that's just a couple of the limitations that we've included, and this provides a lot
more flexibility for any site-specific conditions where they need to adjust what the size is
or the number of signs, and just helps to reduce the constraints in having to go through
a more lengthy process.
And it also reduces the need for discretionary hearings for minor adjustments that the DRC
would most likely approve anyway.
And we did include a provision in the ordinance for the minor deviation that the director
is at Sartre discretion can always refer a minor deviation request to the DRC if they
find it necessary.
So for sign maintenance and removal, there was the existing ordinance has some reference
to the maintenance and removal of signs, but we have really expanded it to be really clear
about what the procedure is for the removal of any unlawful, abandoned, unsafe, or unauthorized
signs.
So this includes different timelines, associated fees, what the process is to get your sign
back if it's removed, and just really expands the process so that it's clear to business
owners or the sign owner of what the requirements are, and also gives clear direction to the
city as well.
So the Master Sign Program, we did a pretty good overhaul of the process for Master Sign
Program updates and when these Master Sign Programs need to be updated.
That's one comment that we received from a lot of business owners that are part of Master
Sign Programs is that a lot of them are 20 years out of date and it's really difficult
for them to have signs that really meet their needs
within the standards of the master sign program.
So we created a timeline for updating master sign programs
and incentives for property owners
to update those master sign programs.
We also created similar kind of to a minor deviation,
but if a master sign program is beyond that timeline,
hasn't been updated, then a business within that master sign program can apply for a signed permit
through the city and it doesn't have to meet the master sign program standards, it just has to meet
the city's signed standards within the existing ordinance. So that is a way for business owners
to still be within the design standards of the city, but maybe less restrictive than the master
sign program they're part of.
And we did add a few new standards so we included some sign standards tailored to individual
zoning districts so that includes tables that are meant to really demonstrate the type of
signs that are allowed in certain zoning districts and the permitting requirement for a different
sign type.
So whether it's an exempt sign and they don't need to apply for a permit or if they need
a signed permit that is just approved at the community development director level or if
it's a sign that needs approval from DRC.
So just to really clarify what type of permits needed for different signs and different zones.
We also updated the requirements for specific land uses such as hospitals and community
facilities and just different land uses that might have slightly different needs than your
average commercial use and making sure we have signed standards that will meet their
needs.
And establishing standards for signed types that were clearly not, weren't super clear
before and just making sure that any, for example, like Skyline signs, we made sure
that there's a whole section on Skyline signs when they're allowed what the requirements
are.
So just making sure that all sign types have standards associated with them.
We also provided regulations for architectural banners, painted signs, A-frame signs and
projected light signs, and those are just different sign types that weren't already
included in the sign ordinance.
So for painted wall signs, this was a previously prohibited sign through the sign ordinance.
Science have become really common for businesses to use and so we wanted to
create some standards for people to be able to incorporate those without and
while still making sure that it's meeting the aesthetic and the quality
that the city wants to see that it's not gonna that there's certain maintenance
requirements and that it's gonna keep up and not start chipping or anything like
that. We wanted to treat it like any other sign. It also can be a really affordable way for businesses
to have a sign up, and we wanted to ensure that painting signs remained compatible with surrounding
development in the community character. So portable signs or A-frame signs, again it's a really big
topic for Walnut Creek and we wanted to create really clear standards for when these are
allowed, where they're allowed, and what standards these A-frame signs need to meet.
And we wanted to also create a, so we've created a size standard, a design standard for A-frame
signs of the types of materials that it needs to use and what the, where it can be located
on the property, how many A-frame signs you can have, which is only one per business where
allowed.
And we also wanted to, I know enforcement is a big issue with A-frame signs, and we
created an enforcement path for the city to use when an A-frame sign is out of compliance
and when it can be removed by the city.
I did mention before we have a, created a section for when signs can be removed and
what the city process is and that has a timeline of we put 30 days, but for A-frame signs,
because they're portable, we put in the standard that the city could remove it immediately
if it does not meet the standards of the sign ordinance, and it would follow the same process
of how do you get your sign back, but the city can go and remove it at any time.
And we did four portable signs.
We only are allowing it in three different zones, and that's mainly in the pedestrian
oriented zone.
So the pedestrian retail mixed use downtown and the mixed use commercial emphasis zones
is the only place where we have portable signs allowed as part of the sign ordinance.
And then projected light signs.
This is, again, kind of a new technology.
It's not super common, but we're starting to see it popping up, especially in more urban
areas so that's where kind of a projector shines a light down on the sidewalk and it
has the city's or the business's logo or the name of the business or something associated
with business to catch pedestrians attention.
So we wanted to create some standards that help businesses to maybe incorporate this
if they're interested but also recognizing that this can also cause a lot of issues if
not regulated properly. So we have regulations on where the light is allowed to be projected,
how big that projection can be, safety standards around where it can be mounted and making sure
it's not going to cause any harm to safety or to the building, and just different operational
standards about when they're allowed
and how they have to be operated.
Cabinet signs, a lot of cities are starting
to prohibit cabinet signs across the board.
However, we also wanted to recognize
that there are cabinet signs that aren't necessarily
the image you see here.
They can be, they might not be that traditional, fully lighted
cabinet sign and wanting to ensure that we're not banning those other signs that we have
standards that prevent these types of signs from popping up but still allowing businesses
to have technically cabinet signs that meet certain standards.
So we have different illumination standards for it, whether it can be fully internally
lit or not, and different sign designs that can be compatible with the city's overall
sign objectives.
So we did include a lot of detail about how to avoid these internally illuminated signs
while still allowing cabinet signs.
So before we are getting into the outs, or we'll go over the eight questions that we
we are going to discuss and then I believe we're going to open it up to comment, correct?
So we'll just go over them really quickly about what we're going to discuss and then
we'll go back and start from question one.
So the first discussion question is going to be should development with deep setbacks
be allowed additional sign area to improve visibility?
Section two is should the maximum size for wall signs for hotels and motels be increased?
How to address routes of significance and standards for freeway oriented signs?
How to address illumination of cabinet signs?
And should the city incentivize the periodic updates of master sign programs and what do
those incentives look like?
Sine standards specific to the downtown pedestrian retail area, and then a few discussion questions
on the sign standards by specific area, and should the city allow for portable A-frame
signs and where and how, so just kind of diving into that question a little bit more.
So with that, I'll open it up to questions.
Anyone have any questions?
I have a question that I like am not certain how to articulate so you know work with me
over the past several years
You know we review the signs that are applying to be modified and I just know that almost every time
There's an exception and we approve it because we're like times have changed and our sign ordinance is really outdated
I don't know all of those exceptions on the top of my head
But do you guys feel like you understood what those were and they've been captured and modified in the in the updated draft?
That's my kind of high-level question
sure, and and this could be a good question for city staff as well for
Exact if they feel that that has been incorporated. We have been working with city staff a lot with
That was kind of the main one of the main discussions of what types of exceptions
are you seeing and how can we and especially the ones that are being approved pretty consistently
how can we incorporate that into standards and I think we have really addressed that from the
city's perspective I will let city staff weigh in on that too. Yeah thank you. In my time with
the city we have seen sign exceptions for all sorts of things right letter height for additional
signage along a particular linear frontage of a building façade.
So to answer your question, the most common exceptions that we do see from the applicant
perspective, I'm confident that we have adequately built that in to the update, working with
the working group as well, receiving staff input and feedback, I believe that that has
been addressed.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
One of the notes you had in your presentation was some of the feedback from businesses that
was their signs were insufficient in size.
I mean, how did they quantify that?
Did they say patrons couldn't find you, did your signs get small, or was there any specific
feedback they gave that kind of put that point in your presentation?
In terms of actual kind of numbers, in terms of how much bigger they would want their signs
to be?
Well, I guess it's an open question.
know what how is it insufficient so if if they did describe that what were
those descriptions sure so a lot of the feedback that we received from business
owners as I mean some people were a little bit more vague about it as they
just wanted more signs and bigger signs and that was kind of the extent to what
they would describe but other business owners and property owners described
that some of the sign the current sign area requirements were limited enough
that they were not able to include a logo or branding or the specific type of
font that they use the wasn't they weren't able to quite fit it into the
sign area that is currently prescribed and you know in a way where it was going
to be visible and legible to who they, whether that's from a vehicle or from the sidewalk
of it being visible from potential patrons.
So it, a lot of it had to do with being able to incorporate their branding and logo and
into the sign standards and that a slightly larger sign area would be helpful for that.
And then some also just it's from a visibility perspective of having a larger sign is just
easier for vehicles to see from further away and just from that visibility perspective
but they didn't give necessarily precise parameters for that.
Thank you.
To further elaborate on that as well to piggyback off Nicky's points.
Planning staff at the front counter right we table all sorts of questions from different
business owners, residents about sign types,
sign allocations as it relates
to square footage allotments.
And quite often, it can even be just unique constraints
to a particular building frontage.
Maybe there's a lot of visual massing
and clutter around a particular storefront.
Perhaps there isn't, and it's actually stand alone
and isolated from adjacent businesses
and far set back from the public right of way,
which would typically be the request for,
oh, well, we're set so far back
and we're the only business on this side of the street,
things like that, right?
That would be rationale for a requested exception
or an increased sign size or type.
Any more questions?
All right, well, let's dive into these
kind of more targeted discussion questions.
So this first question again is should development
with deep setbacks be allowed additional sign area?
So this is for businesses that, for example,
are in a shopping center, so there's a whole parking lot
between the street and their business.
So should those businesses that are set back
be allowed additional sign area to improve visibility
from the street and considering whether
to increase sign area should be granted
either at the administrative level
as part of the, well, whether that should be
as kind of baked into the standards themselves,
whether it should be approved at an administrative level
through a minor deviation process
or if that should be something that needs to go to DRC.
So where that would be approved if we wanted to allow that.
And how did you want us to, like, opine on this?
Do you want us to talk amongst ourselves?
Do you want everybody to say what they vote?
What would you like to do?
I think it would be appropriate.
If you'd like to collect your thoughts for a few seconds,
that's fine.
We can jump right in or go in order,
starting not to put you on the spot, Phil,
but if you'd like to lead it off,
being a part of a working group.
Thanks for that, yeah, so.
So I'd say to Commissioner Case's point,
I'm very pleased to see the second question
because I know we've all sat on the science subcommittee
and wonder why we're there.
And so I very much support the second item, the 20%.
I think that's good, because it allows things
to become more objective and for staff
and for the director to have a little flexibility
before they escalate it to us.
So yes, I support that.
I'd say that the first comment,
you know, we talked a bit about master sign programs.
I think one of the purposes of a master sign program
in a shopping center, which is the example that you used,
is they're supposed to, when they create it,
they're supposed to think about their property
and create a master sign program that suits their property.
So we have to let, if we're gonna have that process,
of master sign program, which I think is important to have
for large properties.
I think that it's hard for us to say,
well, we're just gonna defer that to staff
without seeing what it is that we're approving, right?
So I feel like, you know, first off,
you have to take the shopping centers
and large properties with master sign programs
out of the discussion.
This is one-off things, right?
That's really what it's about.
To me, it's like, I think the answer to the first question
is no, I think they should have,
I think we should give them flexibility
in those situations to come to designer V commission
and ask, but I don't think it should be automatic.
You don't think that we could set some parameters?
For instance, if it's X hundred feet,
then they can have 20% automatically
or something like that that is a table
that they can understand and.
That was my thought too is like define large,
I mean, if we make some of it.
Right, define large, yeah.
Objective and yeah, like if it needs a certain setback
that we, this group or you know, the sign experts agree,
make it visually more difficult to see,
I don't know what that distance is,
then up to a certain amount maybe is automatic.
I'm always a little bit wary of the things that require extra approval.
If it's something 90% of the time, we're going to be like, yeah.
So I feel like make it automatic if we all
agree that that's probably going to be a scenario where we don't mind it.
But it does have to meet the criteria that feels like it's necessary.
Well, my question, I wonder if there isn't some conditional aspect to this,
is that as I read the first bullet point, allow additional sign area.
Does that mean the sign is simply bigger?
Or does that mean there is two signs, right?
And so there's a second sign.
Yeah, it would be the sign is larger.
So maybe then I'm a support person.
I'm not sure.
I believe a large sign is necessary.
But I think it's also conditional.
If you have a sign of the street,
because you've got a big setback to a single location,
single building, single business,
I don't know that you need to have two signs for that.
But if it's a sign that has three businesses in the building,
then maybe sure, then each one that can have a sign,
maybe it's a lesser of a sign.
But yeah, I think the land that distinguishes themselves,
I think is relevant.
But simply to have, because it's set back
and they get a second sign,
I don't know that I agree with that.
And it's interesting because
what's asked is additional sign area.
So it doesn't say additional signs.
Was that the intent of the question?
Was additional signs or larger signs?
So it would be, it's not an additional sign, it would be a larger sign area.
So if you have one sign, you would be increasing it by, you know, instead of a six by four sign,
you have a eight by five sign, for example.
So it's a sign area of one sign, gets increased, not a second sign, not, it wouldn't,
this wouldn't be allowing them to have an additional sign to what they are already
permitted to have within the sign ordinance. So it may just be that the the question might be worded
maybe a little bit off of um but yes the intent and the what is written in the
what we currently have in the the drafted sign ordinance is we well we don't we don't have this
included we don't have any reference to this right now. I believe in the existing sign ordinance
though there's a provision that I think it's a hundred foot setback from the, if the business
is set back by a hundred feet, there is, and I forget what the percentage is in the existing sign
ordinance, there's a percentage increase in sign area. And so that is the, it's essentially if
that should be still incorporated or if that should be removed and they would need to get a
deviation or go to DRC. So the large setback is a hundred feet? Currently. I believe that's and
don't quote me on that. I believe it's a hundred feet setback from the street. Okay. Yeah. So the
first thing I think of when I see this is, I worked for many years at the Ruth Bancroft Garden,
which I don't know if you're familiar with it it's on Bancroft it is the only commercial building
on that street and people are constantly missing it when they try to go there because of the sign
ordinances so it would be nice they don't it that place doesn't fall within that 100 foot setback
but it does, it is very difficult to see from the street.
So I think that if we are discussing this question,
it's not always just a certain number of setback,
but there can be a general visibility
based on how fast cars go, based on existing trees,
based on other aspects.
And so just having it be, oh, it's the setback
that makes the business difficult to see,
we lose a lot of places where that wouldn't really work.
What if we define criteria that make visibility difficult,
and if you check so many of them?
I think that would probably make it more reasonable
for people, for businesses.
Okay, so having kind of a list of different criteria
that they, you know, two or three, they meet two or three of those that, or I
guess if it should be multiple of those criteria of your, you know, set back from
the street a certain distance, I guess the other question, this could be more
discussion or we could do a little bit more research on our end of, you know, how
many of those criteria they would have to hit and what those, how specific we
we wanna get with that criteria.
I just looked into our current ordinance.
I believe that's attachment one with your agenda packet.
This item reads as follows, building setback from street,
the tenants of a building which is setback 100 feet or more
from the street may increase the wall sign area,
otherwise permitted to face such street by 25%,
providing that the total sign area
on any one building frontage still does not exceed
200 square feet.
So that's how it's currently drafted.
Or that's how the current ordinance reads.
I like it the way it is.
I think now, to her point, I mean,
I think there may be other criteria
that would allow the increase.
And I don't know what they would be.
Trees.
I think that if there's impeded visibility
due to any condition, it would trigger an ability
to have an exception granted.
I mean trees, there's, at Ruth Bancroft it's trees,
a sound wall, no other retail,
like there's like multiple conditions that makes it
so that people can't see the entrance.
That's not the only place.
I mean, as you said, there's lots of streets,
street impediments as you're driving down a street
that don't allow you to see a lot of things like parking.
So I think that if we're looking at somebody's business,
we should look at if they are readily identifiable
to the average consumer,
you know, the average person walking or driving.
You see that, yeah.
To see it.
That's something you often see as well
in the Shadelands area with the medical practices.
That's true.
hard to see the signs and I can imagine for those businesses it would be
frustrating. We've seen them come in with requests for exception. Yeah, but
there's other, I mean, we're thinking about this in two dimensions though like
we're thinking about a building with a sign on it that's a hundred feet from
the street and that they don't have, there's no other opportunities
is availed to them.
So like if this is, there's a parking lot,
the building's back in the back,
but they also have signs at the street,
they may not need it.
But I think I do understand to your point
that the Luth Bankcroft example,
you know, you go, as I've gone to,
I mean, you turn that corner,
you could go past it pretty quickly.
And if you don't see it,
you can miss it pretty easily.
So I appreciate that comment.
I mean, I think that's why I think it's more or less
the language that's there serves,
but is there something else you wanna add
other than a hundred feet?
That's how I would change.
It would be an obstruction beyond their control.
I don't know whether it be a light pole or whatever it is.
Yeah, and I think also partly to,
so partly to the second point on here
is do we want to create specific codified criteria that
would essentially, if you meet any of this criteria,
you can have 20% larger sign for your wall sign.
Or do we want to provide, and if we do that,
it needs to be very specific criteria that is decided on.
Or it could be that we just list that, you know,
if you are meet these different types of criteria
and it doesn't necessarily need to be fully comprehensive
of what could, you know, we could include
if your business is set back further from the street
is if there's, you know, higher speed traffic
or and list some of those examples
and then kind of have a catch-all
or any other condition that otherwise decreases visibility.
then they can apply for a minor deviation
and that can be at the discretion
of the community development director through that process.
So I guess that's part of the question here is
do we want that specific criteria
that would automatically allow it
or have it go to the director for review
kind of to make the case for why
an increased sign area is required
and the director would make that decision
or the director could choose to defer
to Design Review Commission.
I just have a question maybe add to this,
is that with Ruth Bancroft Garden,
I see a lot of, I live in that area,
so I see a lot of people coming from the North
and they have to make a U-turn, they go back around.
So perhaps part of the consideration is,
are there other public works improvements and impediments
to keep people from making that turn
they see the signers on,
because all these businesses are competing
for other people's money.
And so, you know, if they're missing out
because there's an impediment built by the city,
but yet down the street is another similar business,
is they may lose some opportunities.
I support the second thing you said,
which was make it at the director's discretion.
That's where I'm at.
But they need to give, they need to have that discretion.
Yeah, they- We need to.
I would support that discretion on my end.
I would too.
I would too.
I think that, to the extent that we can make the exception objective, so we could say 20 percent,
you can have up to 20 percent, your first path is to go to the director and if the director
can't come to a decision, then it can come to us.
That's kind of how I would word it.
I think it would be good if in the materials that are available to businesses,
some of those exceptions, some of, are listed,
I think it might not occur to them that,
oh, there's an opportunity
and because I meet these qualifications.
So just demonstrating that so it doesn't feel like
this isn't even gonna be possible,
but it may be possible if you meet,
that would be my only addition.
As we know, we have these projects come to us
that severely impede the ability
of people to see around a corner.
So, I think if they show that they need more help,
whether it's a monument sign out front or something,
to get identification in a lot of these areas,
then that should be an allowable exception
or an allowable condition.
Does that make sense?
Okay.
Yeah, I think, so I know we've taken a lot of notes on that.
I think we have a clear direction
that this will be kind of taking that minor deviation route for this but
making sure that we're including some examples of what those conditions might
be. Okay great. Are there any other comments before we move on to the next
discussion question? Alright so discussion question number two is should
the maximum size for wall signs for hotels and motels be increased? So we
We have already, as part of the update, increased it from what was 25 square feet to 50 square
feet for a wall sign.
There is a justification for increasing it further, especially for proximity to freeways.
Usually hotels are very much car travel-oriented businesses.
And there are several jurisdictions that do allow for a larger sign above 50 square feet
as an exception for hotels and motels,
but we did wanna get an opinion from you all
about whether that increase to 50 square feet
is sufficient and leave it at that
or if we should increase it further.
The freeway signs come to DRC anyway, right?
Correct, yes, if they're within 500 feet of the freeway.
Has there been requests by the owners of the hotels
and motels to have larger signs?
Is that what's prompted this?
I would need to defer to city staff on that.
Good evening, Commission.
Michael Gibbons, project manager.
So the real impetus for this was thinking
about looking at what are our hotel signage that we look at
now?
And 25 square feet, when we were actually
looking at what the base minimum didn't really
support normal hotel signage.
And looking at it even further, we went, okay, 50 feet.
Significant increase, but does 50 feet still achieve
kind of these base minimum standards
for a Hilton or a Home 2 Suites?
And so while we'd see justification
for increasing it to 50, I think the question is,
is that still kind of meeting what a standard sign type
would be coming in for a hotel or motel use,
kind of beyond that freeway-oriented signage
that we're discussing?
So we have proposed, I think it's just more
out of kind of the best practice,
we're not seeing small hotel signs.
They're becoming larger and larger.
And so kind of creating that process for facilitating them.
To clarify, was not a specific request
more of a best practice that we're seeing for signage?
Well, throughout my opinion, my gut reaction is,
I feel like increasing it by double is fine.
I don't know.
I feel like everybody is using GPS in their phone
to find their location anyway.
I don't know if a hotel needs a sign.
I actually feel differently if it was like a business.
This one feels like you've already booked a room.
You know where you're going?
Yeah, and for me, if we make it even bigger
and it's lit up all night, who is that going to affect?
So I think about the used to be club sport,
but I don't think it's club sport, the Renaissance.
And there's townhomes across the street.
So if they doubled or whatever, made their sign a lot bigger,
it would cause light pollution across the street.
So, I'm not sure.
I think we should do our freeway sign exception thing.
Okay.
So that we keep them all standard up to 50.
And then if it is a freeway sign,
if it is something that you can't really see
from a distance and it's not in a residential neighborhood,
it's facing the freeway, then we look at it one by one.
What do you guys think?
So you're suggesting that we leave it at 25
And if they want to go to 50, they have to come back and ask.
No, I'm suggesting that we increase it to 50
like they already have.
And then if they need to come back and ask,
it comes to us, because it is going to anyway
if it's on a freeway, which would be the only time you'd
need bigger than 50.
More than 50?
So answering the first question, you're
supporting the first question blanketly.
And then the second question, the answer to that question
is yes, right?
The answer to that question is yes, there's justification with our DRC review and approval. I agree. Okay, there we go
I agree. Yeah, I agree
But for the second question, it would be not automatic. It would be
Right
Okay, so we'll keep it at the 50 and then anything that would be above that would we would only want it for if it's
in proximity to freeway and go
Through the the process of a freeway oriented sign and just to clarify for us. The 50 is the maximum. Yes
Correct. All right any further comments on this question before we move on?
Okay. So question number three. So how to address routes of significance in standards for freeway oriented signs or
specifically skyline signs
And just so for
The point of this is whether, so for freeway oriented signs,
it's typically that skyline signs are allowed
or a larger sign is allowed.
And if that kind of standard should also apply
to BART tracks and other routes of regional significance
and how we're defining those routes of significance
and which one should qualify and how we're referencing
to a list of routes of significance
where there's going to be heavier traffic, faster speeds,
and does that warrant a business of being allowed
to have a larger sign similar to how we allow
larger signs for freeway-oriented businesses?
So my first inclination would just be say no.
I think with the way that BART runs through the city
and into Concord,
it's running through residential neighborhoods.
And so it feels like it would start a slippery slope
of having just signs everywhere.
And then secondly, on the roots of significance,
again, my first thing I think of is Ignacio Valley Road,
and it's already very urban,
and I don't think we wanna lean into Crete
making it more urban by having larger science.
So that's just my two cents on that.
I mean, I think the question is not whether
you can have science on the BART tracks,
the BART is its own agency,
they don't need to come to the city for,
it's really what can be seen from the BART tracks
is really the question, right?
Correct, yes.
Yeah, and just breaking this into pieces.
So the next thing is you would have to be able
to be entitled to have a sign to begin with
in order to ask for this.
So you can't put a sign in a residential neighborhood
where it wouldn't be allowed.
What this would be about,
it would be about areas on BART
where there's a BART track
and it's adjacent to a business.
my office is on Oakland.
So I look right out my window at the bar track
coming right by, that's kind of what it's written to.
That's part of the reason we kind of opined in this
in the meetings and that's kind of why
I'm glad you asked the question is,
and also the second question,
just, this is more common than a question,
but like we have seen more than once this question
of regional significance come up with Ignacio
for the businesses or log Ignacio or whatever,
And so like, I think we have to be explicit.
So that's why they're asking.
Yeah.
I feel like I don't think necessarily,
I don't think it necessarily should apply to bar tracks,
but I think for me, to your point,
I don't think the bar tracks matter that much
because you're not,
the purpose of these signs being bigger is so that you can,
and like related to freeways and so forth,
is you pass these locations so quickly
that you might miss it.
that's why it's good to have a larger sign.
No different than the last question
about being 100 feet away.
It's really like, well, if you're on a BART train
and you're looking at a, you're not gonna stop
and go to that business.
So I think, for me, I think you would take the BART,
I think you would take the BART tracks off the table.
I think the question is, is really,
best example is the one you pointed out, Ignacio.
It's like we've seen, I don't know,
several times businesses come in
And it asks for that.
That to me is the key question.
Is that?
What are they asking for?
Like marquee signs at the top to identify the tenant
or yes, big giant street monuments
that you drive by or what?
Well, we have the, what do they call them?
Skyline signs, they're not asking
about skyline signs necessarily.
That would be applicable to BART, the skyline sign,
if we were to consider that.
I think we take that off the table.
I think it's just like, I felt a little consensus
on just scratching the word barred off here entirely, right?
We talk about routes of regional significance.
I think I'm hearing no, right?
I mean.
If we're defining a route of regional significance,
which is the main one that we have,
that people come from many other places
and drive down every day, which is Ignatia and or treat,
I agree with you, I don't think we need to consider
freeway-oriented type signs on those locations
because these are in reality street level,
pedestrian level, car level locations.
Well, and they're also residential,
they're not commercial.
Right.
They're refers, right.
They're not lined with blocks and blocks,
blocks of commercial, it's mostly residential.
Big tree, big wide yard, it's almost residential.
Treat is, yeah.
Yeah.
Ignatia is a little mixed especially.
So I mean, I think the answer to the first question is no.
Right?
Anybody disagree with that?
And then I think by answering that,
we've already answered the second question.
I understand from an economic development perspective
that it makes sense for a business to be identifiable
to someone who's on BART.
And they say, oh, great, I can get off here and go there.
Or, oh, great, when I get my car, I can go back there.
Or I didn't know we had that there.
I get that.
But I also understand what you're saying.
Well, and we talk about these things in a vacuum,
but business owners do have,
they do have the opportunity to create
a master sign program
and actually draft their own standards outside of this,
right, isn't that true, Steph?
Like if you have a master sign program,
that has to come to this commission to be reviewed, right?
And so based on the geometry of that property,
we could see some exceptions a lot
for that particular property, right?
Beyond our objective standards?
As opposed to having standards for it.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Which is what we do anyway.
Yeah, so it's, but like.
We did a master sign program
that faced 24-6-80 interchange on the other side, right?
Recently.
Yeah, yeah, we did that one.
And it had the, yeah, yeah.
And we also did one for Ignacio
on that corner right across from where they.
from the, where's the safe way?
Yeah, we did one there.
I mean, so these major landlords,
they do them, right?
So they're availed that opportunity.
And I just don't think,
I can't think of a property
where that wouldn't be done anyway, right?
Okay, great.
Okay, so it sounds like we want to just,
for this, we don't want it to apply to BART
or routes of regional significance, correct?
I think it's status quo on this.
OK.
Any further comments before moving on?
All right, so this next question is
how to address illumination with cabinet signs.
So as I mentioned earlier, some jurisdictions just outright
prohibit cabinet signs to avoid the more old school cabinet
signs that are internally, fully internally lit,
just a big box that's lit up.
However, there are several signs that are actually
classified as cabinet signs where they might not
look like these more, like the old school cabinet signs
where it's kind of a light box, but only the letters are lit
and the whole background is opaque,
or it's edge lit around the sign.
There's a lot of different sign technologies out there.
And what our idea was is that the city may actually
want to allow those types of signs where it's technically
internally lit, but it's not the entire sign is lit up.
It's just the lettering or the logo that's lit up
and is kind of showing through the kind of a cutout
through the sign background.
And so we just want to see what the commission feels
about how to regulate the illumination of cabinet signs.
I believe we initially were just thinking,
oh, we'll prohibit internal illumination,
but we wanted to see how we can incorporate
the allowing for either externally lit, halo lit,
edge lit, back lit cabinet signs as well.
So in your packet, you have three examples of allowed,
and we've seen some of those where the letters
are individual and they're, but they're in, yeah,
with the lighting themselves and things like that.
Yeah.
I agree with your choices.
Okay.
I mean, I think we've done exception for halo-lit
over and over and over and over again.
Over and over.
Allow that one, I recognize that.
I don't know if I recall the edge-lit.
Like this one.
So, I guess that my question is if there are design standards for the cabinet signs and
those design standards are reviewed, I wouldn't see any reason why they wouldn't be allowed.
Well, we have pined a lot about this and you guys listened to me.
Thank you.
That's my comment.
Being the newest member on this board here, I do have a question about external illumination
and just what the requirements or rules are for that.
And my question is more about light pollution.
Are we mandating, you know, downlights?
Yeah.
So for externally lit, and I would say the external illumination, like what you see at
the top of that allowed, isn't as common, but that would essentially, it would, any
externally lit sign would need to meet lighting standards and it's typically
that it needs to be a downward lighting where it's just the lights just showing
on to the sign and not you know creating glare for pedestrians or vehicles so
that would be specific to externally lit signs for and then there are I believe
we do have lighting standards for how bright signs can be.
I guess one of my questions is, you know,
signs that have lighting from below, right,
and then the signs will reflect light up,
which is light pollution.
Sure.
Down lights, hidden lights would have you.
Yeah, we have, no, we have regulations
about shielded light.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Haven't seen any of that.
Yeah, they have.
Not related to signs though.
Pardon?
That's not, that would be a question.
So, we did talk about that when we're talking about
the building standards, but this is science standards.
So, I think it's a good point.
It's a good point that in that first example,
you can't have the external illumination from below,
or you can't.
Don't we have existing, like, monuments
that have lights that shine up on them?
But they're shielded.
Shielded, okay.
Yeah, I mean, I'd say, you know, looking at the example,
I think it's a good example,
but you don't wanna be light in the sky.
I mean, all of these solutions actually,
because we've talked about this, right?
The ones on, they don't really illuminate the sky.
None of them are like the sign on the right.
As an external illumination that shines down,
halo lit is on around the sign,
the letters themselves and the edge lit
is around the sign itself. So I mean, I think all of them control it. I think the only based
on what you said, the only exception to that would be we just don't want to light the sky,
right? Right. So the sign. So any sign has to comply
with building code for lighting. It's not a building code thing. I'm happy to read through
Yes.
Right.
Dark sky.
Sorry to interrupt.
So, the brightness limitations per the current code, would you like me to read through that?
It reads as follows.
No sign shall be illuminated so that the primary source of light is visible from off the property
or in such a way as to cause excessive glare, somewhat vague.
In no instance shall the lighting intensity of any sign, whether resulting from the internal
illumination or external illumination, exceed 75 candles when measured with the standard
light meter.
And typically, as staff, when we're reviewing sign applications, we typically require some
sort of, let's say, like stamp of approval from a consultant demonstrating that the sign
and will not create adverse glare impacts
to adjacent properties,
or of course like safety impacts as well.
Yeah, I still don't think that's as specific
with what I'm interested in,
you know, I think what we're discussing is.
Right, we don't want them going up.
We're talking more about light pollution,
migrating birds, insects, right.
Cars driving.
So it's beyond glare,
It's the light not being directed at the sign itself.
So if there could be,
I mean, I think that if there was standards that were created
and then we reviewed those standards,
we could come back and kind of go into the details more.
Or just say shielded from illuminating the sky
or something like that.
Dark, sky compliant or?
Yes.
And shielded pointed only at the sign
so that it's not visible to a car driving down the street.
As a downlight, it's tilted
so that it's not in the driver's eyes.
Yeah. Does that make sense?
For the external illumination, correct.
Right, for external illumination.
It applies to that sign, right?
Because it's like, I think,
go down a slippery slope when we try to do the other two,
because you actually can see that light, yeah.
Yes, but it's not pointed at you.
Right.
Like an alignment would be if it wasn't...
Just, I think just some language like that.
I don't know, that's not really the right thing to say,
but there's another way to say it.
It's lots of feedback.
Okay.
Okay, and so we, and I know we,
so we do have existing light standards
that are part of, they're not necessarily specific
cabinet but just more general lighting standards so kind of emphasizing a few
more things in those general lighting standards for signs. And so for and
regarding how it's current we've currently allowed for illumination for
cabinet signs as written in the updated in the updated ordinance is that seem
like a reasonable illumination standards or would the commission like to see any updates
to specific to cabinet signs of how they can be lit?
Uh-huh.
I think so, too.
Okay.
Great.
Okay, so moving on to question five.
So this is a question regarding if we should be in, should the city incentivize the periodic
updates of master sign programs, and this is discussing what those proposed incentives
are.
We have included some currently in the code update, and are those sufficient to encourage
updates to master sign programs and consider how incentives can promote the modernization
of these master sign programs while reducing amendment costs and administrative burden.
So I believe we have a, the incentives we currently have, we have a timeline of when
the master sign program would need to be updated.
And I believe we have in here, I believe it's 10 years, you can find the 10 years, okay,
so 10 years.
Then if the property owner that has a master sign program updates it within that 10-year
time frame, there's an incentive of a reduced application fee because it does need to go
through and needs to be reviewed by the design review commission, so reducing that fee to
do that.
And so that's the current incentive that we have.
So just a discussion of that incentive, if it's sufficient enough, and if there should
be any modification to that process of updating master sign programs.
To me, a change in the signage and master sign program is actually going to be business-driven.
If it's a large development with a number of businesses, I think they'll drive that.
They want a new way to draw a new business, and they may push the developer and the landlord
to go to sign program I don't I'm not following why we would want to drive that fund that
is supposed to let the market do that that makes sense yeah and so some of the feedback
that we've received and the reason why we included this and it was feedback we received from
business owners within that are currently in master sign programs and I think it's just
Even if the businesses within the Master Sign Program
would like to see an update to the Master Sign Program,
it's still at the,
it's the responsibility of the property owner
to actually go through and update it
and they can choose not to
and basically the Master Sign Program
is in effect until it gets updated.
So there are situations where the businesses
within the program would like to see it updated,
but the property owner doesn't update it.
So that's where, why we created this as for situations
where it's, for lack of a better term,
it's business owners feeling like they're trapped
within their master sign program,
that's not being updated.
To further elaborate on that,
just as planning, current planning staff,
we do receive quite a few perspective applicants
come in for a sign application.
it might start off as a building permit,
or even an AUP, where somebody moves into an establishment,
they want to pop up new signage,
and then they get the hard no from a staff
that this is not compliant with the existing MSP.
And then you pull up that existing MSP,
and it might be pretty old,
so providing a little bit of flexibility and incentives
across the board was, to Nikki's point,
kind of a significant portion of our approach here.
Were the fees one of the barriers for the property owners and doing that or is that just the lever the city can pull?
You know what I mean to help incentivize. I would say
you know cost is
You know a factor it's more so also timing
Involved
the initial review process and timeline,
the public review period and timeline.
And then additionally, coming before the DRC
or whatever the entitlement path looks like,
I think the financials are a factor,
but it's bundled into the bigger issue
with it just being all of it.
So being able to be a little bit of,
provide some flexibility with that decade timeframe.
That's a few reasons why we're exploring
that's an incentive option.
Yeah, I know.
I want to flip the, go ahead.
Could there be some kind of a streamlined process?
Like if it's within the 10 years,
then they don't have to go to all the meetings or something.
Because I mean, at least in my world,
the cost is like consultant fees.
So waving city fees, it's like, thank you.
But it's not anywhere near what really the cost is.
I wonder if we felt comfortable
that it's like they're updating it within a 10 year timeframe
And hopefully it's not wildly different.
And that is, we have included,
so the voluntary renewal incentive,
in addition to a reduced application fee,
it's also that it would include administrative review
and approval by the community development director
upon making all required findings
that we establish slightly earlier in the subsection.
So if the update just includes certain,
it's not a complete overhaul,
but it's just updating within the parameters that we have,
that it would just go through
the Community Development Director,
not Design Review Commission.
Okay.
Okay.
Good.
Good.
No problem.
We got four out of five.
I guess just my question is, flip this over,
is there a way that perhaps I have a storefront
in a shopping center and we're one of 15 stores.
And if, and we all do, right?
There's a little community of store owners, right?
You live in this, or who are part of this development.
And let's say 30% of us or a third of us
want to make improvements or signs of program.
Is there a way to compel, you know?
And maybe I'm substituting the word incentive for compel.
but compel the property owner or the landlord to say no,
adopt this because we've had five applications which
is a third of your membership.
Now we're asking you to do a revision to your master sign
program.
You as the tenant have the right to go move to another place.
Understand.
Or not sign your lease or make your lease contingent.
That's the power you have.
Yeah.
Bingo.
It happens all the time.
I work for a lot of tenants, my use.
My question that goes back to then,
then why would we give an incentive?
Because businesses have this opportunity to move,
but your beliefs doesn't accommodate my needs as a business.
I'm going to sell it for ourselves.
I mean, because there are instances like on Olympic
and stuff where the landlords don't wanna do anything.
I mean, that's what we've seen.
And so it's actually been good.
It's actually in the end been good for the landlord
because they can attract more tenants.
and giving them some kind of incentive is good.
I think if you have an, you know,
if you're Broadway Plaza or somebody like that,
you know, they're probably coming back more,
they're coming back on a tighter timeframe
than that asking for standard upgrades.
And there's nothing that says that you will,
the city will only review it every 10 years.
They can do it whenever they want, right?
Like if you want to, you can update it at any time.
Nothing that stops you as a landlord from doing that.
Inversely, if you're a tenant and you want to change it,
the window is 10 years that you have.
So like to your point, if you want to enforce it more,
then you shorten that to seven years
or whatever length you want.
But the issue is of course, consultants like us
have to, you know, you have to go pay somebody
to make that change even if it's not necessary.
That's the trade-off, right?
Yeah, I'm okay with incentives.
Yeah.
There is there any any further comments on this before we move on so question six for
so sign standard specific to the downtown pedestrian retail area so we did create some
specific standards to this zone it include including limited sign standards for the downtown
retail area and are there additional standards that the city would like to see specific to the
downtown pedestrian retail area that we haven't also, that we haven't already included here.
And again, and just to note that these that are specific to the downtown pedestrian retail
area is in addition to all the other standards, signed standards in the ordinance.
So it's not that they just, all of a sudden only these standards apply, it would be all
All standards in addition to these.
39.
Thank you.
So it looks like the portable sign a lot.
I guess it's all new.
And I would say for these, the standards that we've included, it's mostly it's creating
more flexibility for signs within the zone.
So having this provision that if there's some alternative design that's not already covered
by the sign ordinance that it can be a lot encouraging it to be allowed but
with the approval of Design Review Commission it's where projected light
signs are allowed and the portable signs and creating some standards for the
portable signs within it. So it's really these standards are really to create
more allowance than maybe in other zones for different sign types. Good night we
spend a lot of time talking through this so I I don't have any additions I think
the projected lights I was my suggested edition so go for it. I know. I think it makes sense in the downtown historic business district to allow some variances. Mm-hmm. Thank you. And so to keep and I guess to the
question are there any additional things that you think we should call out as
part as in the downtown pedestrian retail area or is what is written kind of
meet expectations for what we shouldn't be including here. It meets mine.
I think expressing individualized character of businesses on the buildings
that have characters a good way to approach it. Thank you.
Perfect. All right. So moving on to question seven. So kind of in a similar vein but
signed standards by specific area. So the sign ordinance does include signed standards limited to
well is this actually is this the same? No. So kind of we have the we have the standards
for the downtown pedestrian retail area. And so the question here is are there other areas
of the city that should, that are either zones or other areas that can be clearly defined
where there should be, you know, specific standards that might slightly differ from
the rest of the sign ordinance and what those, the boundaries of those areas would be and
what kind of standards we would want to apply. So kind of similar to the downtown retail
area, are there other zones or areas of the city where we should either expand
or in or even further restrict certain sign types or allowances? I have a
question about this. Is North Main considered part of the downtown area? I
would need to defer to city staff on that. So like what is the boundary of the
downtown area? A portion, Sim correct me if I'm wrong, a portion of downtown
main is within the downtown core area. Okay. The cut off is, I believe, the parcel north
of the Nashio Center. And that's it, because there's that entire other stretch. Yes. That
is highly developed, and we're seeing more and more, like the new Porsche dealership
is going in there. And that feels like a part of the city that really, we should be looking
at sort of signed standards and making sure that things are visible as far as businesses.
Aligned with the North Downtown specific plan because there was an idea for that like Maker's
Row, remember all this?
Oh yes.
So that might need its own criteria.
I also feel like the, I can't think of the name, right now, right near BART, the like
TOD development and I've, you never know, I've heard murmurs that some of those office
buildings at like Ignacio Center may convert to housing.
So it's like, does that have a different,
is there like a ground floor retail thing
and then residents above that has its own
signed character and signs?
Totally, yeah.
Like I know some of the businesses there now
probably would like A-frames outside
because people don't know that's there.
I don't know, that's the only other district
that can pop to use on anyone.
I guess the flip side is,
is any landlord can create a master sign program, right?
That's the flip side.
So like, you know, we looked at the Porsche dealership in its entirety and as part of
that application, I think we looked at signage, they can do that, right?
They can come and it's, you know, they want to, you know, those kind of businesses, they
Chick-fil-A, whatever, they want a composition and those things always seem to come up.
So I feel like, I mean, the question is, is there any other unique place and the boundary
question is a good one.
notice they asked it, right? It's like it's hard, you know, like what about
Countrywood? Well Countrywood should have a master sign program or any of those
any of those retail areas should have a master sign program. In any other one-offs
when they when they build them they they can come in with their signage and we'll
look at it, right? The question is, is there any other neighborhood like downtown
in Walnut Creek. I think it's a question of boundaries for me it's like yeah if
you go up Mount Dablin you go up there towards where it I don't know Ace
Hardware isn't that is is that part of is that part of the pedestrian
pedestrian zone I don't know where it swings around and it's by the deli and
then there's the plumbing store yes yes stuff you know Marucci's Marucci's
I believe that's still within the core, but it's not within the PR district, not the pedestrian
region.
It's not the pedestrian zone, but it's like the downtown.
Then the downtown about North Main and the auto row and where the gun store wants to
go and all that stuff out there.
That would be similar.
In other words, going up Mount Diablo towards the freeways in my head is similar to the
a little bit of industrial retail as opposed to the.
Do we want to look at specifics for those or do we want to do them staff and.
Well, how do we set the boundaries of the areas?
How do we set the boundaries of it?
Like we just said, if some of the business may turn into residential, so maybe we don't.
And North Main didn't used to be all auto dealerships, a lot more mom and dogs.
No, I mean, up by Ace Hardware, there's going to be that eight-story building.
Yes, that we got.
And they're not going to have any cars.
So they're going to be walking, right?
It is going to, yeah, it's going to...
It's going to change.
That's going to change if the building goes in there.
there. It's gonna change that so I feel like. I think so. Up for review. I think it has to go
through the process because they're both in flux both areas are. And then Ignacio has
because it's kind of its own sort of image in all of that as just treat.
Okay.
Sorry.
That was a great discussion.
Any further comments before we move on to our final discussion question?
So the final question is regarding portable A-frame signs and where and how they should
be allowed.
So one of the bigger changes we made was from initially not allowing A-frames to allowing
them with some guardrails.
So we have included a set of standards, including hours of display, sign area, height, sign
placement, and the design and maintenance of A-frames as just the sign standards, and
that these would be allowed only in specific zones
that are more pedestrian oriented.
And we've allowed it currently in the update,
portable signs don't count towards the total number
of signs that are already allowed for that zone or property.
And then we have it that no permit is required
for portable signs provided they comply
with all the standards that we've established.
And it's just limited to one sign per business.
So those are the standards we've set.
And the question that we've discussed with staff
back and forth and would like commission's opinion on
is how we are permitting these signs,
if we keep it as they don't need to apply
for a signed permit,
if they need to apply for a standard signed permit
that's approved at the administrative level,
or do we want to consider requiring a temporary sign permit
with an annual renewal for portable signs?
So we just wanna kinda discuss the different permitting
options for allowing A-frames.
So the location where A-frames are allowed
is just downtown historic area?
It is within the pedestrian retail zone
and then the mixed-use downtown zone
and the mixed-use commercial emphasis zone.
So it's allowed in three zones currently.
Where is the third zone located?
So the mixed-use commercial emphasis,
I would need to defer to city staff
about where that zone is within the city.
So it's excluding existing walkable retail zones,
other walkable retail zones and shopping centers.
Yeah, so it wouldn't, and again,
it would just depend on the zone, so a-
Sorry to interrupt, it's my understanding,
we don't regulate A-frame signs currently.
Yeah, in our sign ordinance, there's no,
I guess, zoning designation or even pedestrian retail
that allows it, but we see them all over the place
in the downtown core area.
And you see them in the shopping centers also.
Everywhere.
Yeah, when the bakery has whatever.
I mean, yeah, you see them in all the shopping centers.
So I guess it seems that's where I feel like
there's some confusion, because we're,
is the idea that we're, the decision to regulate something
that is just a blind eye is turned to at this point?
Or I guess I'm wondering what we are doing?
The idea from staff's perspective
is to create a set of standards.
That way we don't have a hodgepodge across the board,
just different types of unpermitted signage
all throughout the public right of way and adjacent areas.
While simultaneously creating these standards,
we're providing flexibility for businesses
to further market their branding.
And then on that, because it's something that's so pervasive,
how is it going to be policed, for lack of a better word?
Actually, what person from the city
is going to go around and pull signs or ticket,
whatever the process is?
Right. If a restaurant's put its menu, a frame out front, you know, written on the spec with the specials.
Do we are we now saying what they can't do that?
And if we are, then I'm opposed.
Yes. And so it would be in and city staff could if they if you want a specific person or department that would go and pick up any signs.
But essentially, there is an enforcement mechanism
where any unpermitted or any sign that doesn't meet
the standards that are established here
could be removed based on the removal standards
that we've established in the ordinance.
We also, and just, we can also expand to different zones
where these are allowed.
We just initially were focusing
on the pedestrian-oriented zones,
but if we want to expand where A-frame signs
would be allowed within the scope of the ordinance,
then we can definitely do that as well.
And just to briefly touch on the enforcement element
of this quite often, even if it's not A-frame signs,
some sort of other unpermitted development,
usually quite often code enforcement's complaint driven,
but there is some sort of team effort
between planning staff and code enforcement staff.
So we do work together on those matters
and sometimes planning will serve something
before code enforcement, and vice versa.
And vice versa, okay.
And apologies, I'm not the expert
in the sign ordinance update,
but from what I understand is there will be
some sort of permit required with an encroachment permit
because anything that's outside of the building
will require a permit.
I've seen that somewhere, is that correct, Michael?
Yeah, so at least there will be a permit in place
if we allow A-frame signs to be installed outside?
That's correct.
And we can elaborate on that.
That's correct, so because we would be,
I mean, the primary location for these
is in the public right of way, on the sidewalk,
and that's technically city property,
so are the one permit, the one requirement
that we would have for the entitlement
would be an encroachment permit through Public Works
that would be an enforcement mechanism
where that could be pulled.
As it stands now, we're not recommending a signed permit.
we're saying, if you're in these zones,
you're allowed one portable sign by right,
as long as you follow these standards
and you get an encroachment permit,
which would be something that would be typical
for any other structure that would be placed
in the right-of-way.
And they can get an encroachment permit for the year
and not have to get it every weekend
when they put out their specials for Sunday brunch.
That should be something that should be facilitated
through Public Works, yeah.
I don't foresee any barriers to why they couldn't have
that specific timeframe.
I would say the details and working with Public Works
for that specific would have to be something
that we would have to...
That hasn't been worked out,
but the goal is to make sure the signs are located
outside of the path of travel.
Right.
And they conform to a standard.
Yeah, and so what if they're not outside
the path of travel?
What if they are a tripping hazard
and one of somebody falls and the city has a suit?
And I think there's criteria of like the locations
that they could place it in,
so that would all be vetted out.
And it's my understanding that Public Works
would not support a sign that's a tripping hazard.
It wouldn't be approved.
And that is why we have built the removal
and the enforcement language as we have,
because of just that instance,
you can have, because these are movable by nature,
someone could easily move it and now it's an impediment.
So we have crafted that language
so that the city can go out, whether it's complaint-driven
or whether it's viewed by Curtis
and can remove that sign if it's not meeting those standards.
And really not meeting those standards would be,
if it's not placed within the location requirements,
if there are too many signs,
if it's being an impediment to public safety,
that can be yanked right away
and housed at the public works facility.
The idea of not having it applied to a lot more
of the commercial zones was to really focus it on
where are people gonna be walking,
because these signs aren't necessarily oriented
towards the driver, you're going too fast,
with setbacks you're gonna be able to see
more of your other business complexes
with a standard signage.
This was really honed in on areas
where we have tight setbacks,
where you're not gonna be necessarily driving
and looking three stories up and seeing a sign
as much as you would be on your sidewalk
and experiencing shopping kind of right in front of you.
So that was kind of the impetus where we started in this downtown core.
But as Nikki mentioned, we can't expand that.
It would just be I think we just want to be careful about an overproliferation of signs,
structure signs and portable signs and where we're wanting those.
So back to Commissioner Basing's point, then, if, you know, this isn't being policed, then
this is more any kind of corrections triggered by a complaint?
As it would stand now, I believe that they are either complaint driven or the removal
of the signs would be up to city discretion.
As I understand it now, I think there is a blindiving turn to some degree allowing these.
This would at least allow some teeth and some enforcement mechanism to the point of would
prohibit these portable signs in other commercial areas.
Yes.
If we went through this route and we are specifying only these zones, we would be restricting
it just to the MUC, both your mixed-use zones and your downtown core.
So on that topic, the shopping centers that we're, you know, we've been talking about
like Out Ignacio and Tree Country Wood, those are private property, right?
Mm-hmm.
So does the city have the right to come remove someone's sign on private property?
For these portable signs, these would be specific for signs in the public right way.
OK, that helps.
I'm just wondering, are we adding a lot of bureaucracy
to something?
To a small business who is struggling
and trying to tell people what their special is.
That's kind of, yeah.
That's why you heard me say that.
So currently, they're not allowed.
It just happens anyway.
So if there's, well, they're allowed and nobody's
told them they could.
So now we're telling them they can't.
But then they have to fill out an application
and pay for an application, and file an application,
and spend their time doing an application as opposed
to running their business.
And as we have it proposed now, they would not
need to fill out an application.
You would be allowed by right to have an A-frame sign
as long as you met the standards.
OK, great.
So but then there's a permit.
You have to get the encroachment permit.
Well, not a side permit.
Downtown, it's all going to be encroachment
because it's all sidewalk unless they put it in the planter.
And I would highly recommend not removing the requirement
for encroachment permit.
I would say that that is a really strong enforcement
mechanism for the scenario someone does trip and fall.
Yeah, it essentially is kind of signing liability
in some way you wouldn't agree.
Is there a way that, is it an in-person application
or is it something that you can do online?
I would assume that the encroachment permits are online,
but I would defer to city staff.
Encroachment permits can be applied for
on the city portal.
Great, okay.
And just for the purposes of the conversation as well,
because there's two sides of the coin here,
I appreciate all the comments.
For planning staff as well,
another reason why this section is being considered,
is so we have a set of uniform guidelines and criteria.
Currently, when you walk up main,
you get quite a wide variety of sign types
that would technically meet the portable A-frame criteria
by definition, but there are some unique designs,
and this would-
Would you add to or subtract from the quirkiness
and the charm?
Yeah, and that's one of the reasons why we wanted
to table this and get feedback from the working group
in the DRC this evening.
So that's the intent of this conversation,
to get direction from you all.
I remember when we did the standards,
the design guidelines for like multifamily.
We talked about like what we didn't want, right?
So it leaves everything else open.
So it's like, do we not want the chunky plastic one
with a ripped poster taped onto it with scotch tape, right?
So it's like maybe we define what we don't want
and then everything else as long as it's not
in the path of travel and it's not left overnight
and damaged, it's fine because it sounds like
mostly we like them, we like the information they share,
they're quirky and so as long as they're out of the way,
we don't care, it's kind of what I'm hearing.
Yeah, I mean, I think you wanna regulate the size.
The size and the stability and the not looking
like a couple of pieces, white PVC pipe thing.
But doesn't that fall within applicable standards?
Yes.
We're saying what the standard is, right?
So like we want the standard to be flexible, right?
And I think we agree with the size.
We agree that it has to be stable, right?
And I don't know how to say,
you know, I don't know how to say something
like you put something on there with scotch tape,
it has to be neat, you know?
I don't know.
Like semi-permanent or, yeah, I.
Semi-permanent means, you know,
that could be interpreted later as somebody bolting it down,
which is what we're asking, right?
I mean, it's like, it's.
Or it can be limited to pre-painted
or versus hand-illustrated.
Yep.
We want hand-illustrated.
Yeah, but on like a chalk or a marker on a surface,
not paper taped to that.
and the current draft reads as follows.
Portable signs with a plastic frame are prohibited.
Metal, wood, and or similar materials are allowed.
Okay.
That's good.
I like that.
And we have a size.
Yeah, and we do have, there is a standard,
and it's a little bit vague,
so it could probably, there's some interpretation,
but we also do have a maintenance requirement
where it needs to be kept in good repair
and appearance at all times while on display.
So if they were junky looking,
could be removed. The only way anything is gonna happen around here is
enforcement, right? Because people are gonna buy these signs, they're gonna put
them out. Great. And I think to that point, one of the reasons for creating this
was, you know, it's not necessarily that there's someone from the city that's
just gonna be going up and down the street patrolling for A-frame signs all
day long. It's also more for when, you know, a city or a business decides that
they're gonna have three A-frame signs that,
and one of them's six foot tall,
that there is an enforcement mechanism
where the city can go and go,
we have these requirements, you're only allowed one.
It needs to be this size
and have a mechanism to remove it
because currently, because it's not regulated at all,
the city doesn't really have grounds to remove signs
either in excess or that are too large.
Well, and also if we have the enforcement,
the encroachment permit process going through,
the city isn't quite as liable
if the people don't abide by it.
Great. Okay.
We good? Yep.
You guys good?
Yep. Yes. I think so.
So I guess before we wrap everything up,
is there any further feedback or direction
we didn't address as part of our discussion that commission would like to provide to us and staff
as we go into revising the draft. No? Thank you for the diligence. I had one little comment.
I think you have a typo. That's it. I actually did read this.
Great. So just before we wrap up, I just want to go over some next steps.
So we are will after this meeting, we'll go back and incorporate any revisions from your feedback.
And then we will present that revised draft to Planning Commission for recommendation
to City Council for adoption. And then from Planning Commission and Council, if there's any
further revisions that we need to make before it's codified, we would make those
revisions as a final step. So we don't have any set dates for that yet, but it
will be over the next few months. So with that, thank you for this is a long
discussion, but it was great feedback and we appreciate taking the time and look
forward to getting this project wrapped up and codified.
Thank you for your work on it.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Okay.
So we've now closed the public hearing and study session.
Do any commissioners have considerations or announcements?
Staff has an announcement.
Okay.
Yes.
So July 15th, the DRC hearing is canceled, so you all get the night off.
Thank you for all your hard work.
And then August 5th will be the next, it's a study session, sorry, not a study session,
a signed subcommittee meeting only.
And that would be for SCIMS, it's a business sign exception, a sign exception.
So August 5th is just a signed thing?
August 5th would be signed exception only, and that's also tentative, so we'll keep you
posted.
So it's just the signed people, right?
Correct.
Yay.
And that is all I have.
Thank you.
Okay, we're adjourned.
Hahahaha.