One, two, checking, one, two, three, check, check, one, two, three.
Good evening and welcome to the September 10th Planning Commission meeting.
Will the secretary please call the roll?
Commissioner Anderson informed me that he would not be able to attend this evening.
Commissioner Moran?
Here.
Commissioner Cowan?
Here.
Commissioner Kwaak?
Here.
Vice chair Kwaak?
Here.
And chair Needing?
Here.
And I believe we just have one item
on the consent calendar.
Yes, that is correct.
And that is the meeting minutes of August 27th, 2026.
Does anybody, does any of the commissioners
wish to review that or I would take a vote?
Do you need a motion?
Yes, please. I move to approve the minutes of August 27th, second.
All right, Commissioner Moran. Yes. Commissioner Cowan. Yes.
Commissioner Strongman. Yes. Commissioner Kwok. Yes.
Vice Chair Klop. Yes. And Chair Needing. Yes. And the motion passes.
Perfect. And now, before we move on to public communications,
actually, sorry,
there are two opportunities for the public to provide comment.
first is right now with items that are not on the agenda but are within the
purview of the Planning Commission and the second is during the actual agenda
item which you see before you as item number four. So is there anybody that
would like to discuss something that is not on the agenda? No. Okay, perfect. Have
there been any ex parte communications? Lots of shaking heads. Okay, perfect, and so now
we're going to start with item 4A, which is Joy Bound Animal Daycare Building CUP Design
Review Tree Removal Sign Ordinance Exception Application. I see that simmer is coming for
the presentation. Thank you. Good evening Chair and members of the Commission Simmer-Gill
Interim Principal Planner with the City. We are here tonight to consider the Joy Bound
Animal Day Care Building that will be located at 2890 Mitchell Drive. The project requires
CEQA environmental review as well as a conditional use permit and various other entitlements
that are listed on this slide.
And with the applicants team tonight,
we have Cheryl McKenna, Scott Corny,
and the project design team.
We have John Pareso and Michael Vidra and myself
to answer any questions you may have after the presentation.
And just to quickly orient you with the site,
it is zoned business park, and it
requires a conditional use permit for expansion
of the existing use on site, which
is the existing joy-bound animal facility.
And a design review is required for the construction
of the new building.
And the site is 8.6 acres, of which 1.56 acres is vacant.
And I've identified that area with the red box and the star.
And that is where the proposed location for the new building.
The surrounding area consists of office, commercial,
and residential uses.
And I also wanted to point out that recently we've
had some approvals and just directly across the street on Mitchell Drive from
this project site will be the future Mitchell Town Homes development that was
recently approved and the other one is the Oakmont Senior Housing Facility that
was approved that will be adjacent to that proposed location for the daycare.
Again these projects were approved but we have not received any actual
permitting so it still hasn't gotten to that phase yet. And here are some existing site
photos of the existing building, the existing facility on site and again the proposed building
location in relation to the rest of the campus. And the star here identifies where the existing
freestanding sign is located again. I have just placed that here just to show you in
relation to the existing facility where that freestanding sign is located.
And tonight the existing campus as a whole was established as a cultural institution
based on Joy Bound's broader nonprofit educational training, animal welfare, and community serving
mission.
So the proposed animal daycare does expand upon those existing programs and services
associated with the established use on site.
And in addition to the new building, there will be outdoor training areas for outdoor
exercise yards and a covered trash enclosure.
And there will also be new parking stalls to accommodate the new building, tree removals,
new landscaping as well as new building signage.
Before I dive into the project details, I wanted to just go over some project history
and prior approvals.
On March 18th earlier this year, the Design Review Commission reviewed this project as
as a study session and did provide overall support
of the project with some comments related
to better building identification
and wayfinding as needed given the large campus facility
and to provide the details on the street face fencing
and entrance gates that are proposed
as well as exterior lighting fixtures
and a noise study was required
to address any potential noise impacts.
And all of those, the plans have been revised
and studies were provided to address DRC comments.
And the prior approvals, in 2001 is when this,
the Animal Rescue Foundation,
which it was formerly known as the ARF facility,
which was established as a cultural institution use.
And then 2018, the Planning Commission and DRC approved
a expansion to that existing facility
and a two-story building.
So tonight the Planning Commission will consider adopting the negative decoration and consider
approval of the conditional use permit which would allow expansion of that cultural institution
use and the design review for building architecture, design and landscape plan as well as the tree
removal permit and the building signage and the sign ordinance exceptions.
And here is a look at the entire site.
I have highlighted the proposed location
for the new building in yellow.
And again, just to show in context
or in relation to the entire site,
access to the site will continue
to be taken off Mitchell Drive.
And I also wanted to point out
that there is a secondary access here from Oak Grove Road.
This is limited to emergency and fire access only,
but I believe that was brought up
at the design review commission just to confirm
that the only way for the public or customers
to access the site is from Mitchell Drive.
And here's just a closer look at that access
from existing driveway and how it'll connect
into the, around the perimeter of the new building.
And there is a new entry gate proposed
near the existing driveway.
New parking stalls are located right along here,
again, along the perimeter of this new building.
And there is a ornamental metal fence that will,
it's, I believe it's a six or seven foot tall fence
along the Mitchell Drive frontage.
I do have some rendering details,
which I will share in the next,
as I go through my presentation.
And here is a closer look at the floor plan
and also showing the access or entrance
into this new building.
So moving into the building elevations,
this is the primary front entrance of this building.
This is where access is provided.
And the primary material does consist
of cement stucco plaster.
The primary color is that cream or off-white.
We do have color swatches here in case
you want to look closer.
Again, this color and material palette and the recess entry
with the integrated metal panels and canopies
is very similar to the existing buildings on site.
So the architecture and the articulation
will complement the existing buildings.
And here is a photo of the existing facility on site.
And this is the south building elevation.
This will face the adjacent parcel.
Again, the same treatment as the existing building,
the recessed windows and the canopies,
as well as the materials and colors.
And that's carried along to all four elevations.
And this is the west elevation.
This is facing the internal,
the animal yards that are proposed.
And this is the east elevation.
This is what you will look at if you're driving
or walking on Mitchell Drive.
the street-facing elevation. The applicant intentionally made the entrance internal facing
into the campus rather than facing Mitchell Drive. And as part of this project, tree removals
are also requested. There are a total of 13 trees being removed. Most of these are landscaped
type species. I did want to highlight that none of these are highly protected species
per the city's tree preservation ordinance and three of these trees that
are bubbled with the red were approved by the city's consulting arborist
administratively given their size and the health of these trees and the 10
remaining they are bubbled sorry I didn't highlight them but they're all
they're scattered throughout this project site primarily near the parking
the proposed parking areas these do require planning commission approval
Again, none are highly protected, but they are in fair to good health.
And as part of this project, four offsite trees are also being preserved, as you can
see bubbled in green along the south elevation, and one onsite tree that's along the north,
closer to the entry, the entrance of the site.
And to offset the loss of the trees, the applicant is proposing 58 new trees, which will range
size from 15 gallon to 24 inch box and there are a mix of species ranging from
maple, crepe myrtles to live oak trees and five gallon shrubs and ground cover
is also proposed as part of the planting plan and again it's scattered throughout
the site as seen on this exhibit and I did want to point out that the acoustic
wall with landscaping is installed between these the exercise yes it's
located between the the exercise yards for the animals and here is that
detail that I mentioned earlier I highlighted it in blue where the new
gates will be installed and here is the new the fencing the four-foot tall CMU
wall with the three-foot high metal fencing that is proposed along the front edge.
The green line illustrates where that proposed fencing will be located.
And now moving into the proposed signage.
The new daycare building will have three new signs as shown here and the locations are
shown on the site plan.
Two are identical 30, 30.5 square foot halo lit signs,
reading joy bound.
And the third sign is a 16 square foot non illuminated sign
that'll be located along the north elevation
along this recessed corner of the building.
And the fourth sign is located on the existing facility
on this site and is shown bubbled in number four
and bubbled in purple for the location of that proposed signage.
And per DRC's direction, the applicant revised their signage plans to incorporate more directional
and wayfinding signs given the size of this campus and the different, there's numerous
doors and entrances and just trying to make it easier for the customer to find where they
need to go.
So, three and a half square foot, I believe there's nine of them, there's nine three and
a half square foot signs.
They are all under the four square foot directional sign allowance in the city sign ordinance,
so these are exempt from the sign area calculations as they're merely wayfinding and directional.
And here are just some photos that shows that they will be mounted to the existing beams
of the building.
So the other request before you tonight is two sign ordinance exceptions.
The first one being the request for the 144 square foot total sign area that's going to
exceed the allowed 100 square foot of sign area in the business park zone.
And the second request is to retain the existing 29 square foot monument sign where the current
sign ordinance allows 24 square feet.
staff does support both of the sign exceptions. Firstly, the freestanding sign, it serves
as a primary identification for the building. And as I've shown you earlier, the existing
buildings are stepped back approximately 200 feet away, if not more. So this is their primary
identification for motorists or pedestrians passing by to find their facility. And then
the eight-acre site and the multiple buildings on site. The proposed signage is warranted and
I also wanted to point out that the 144 proposed total sign area is below the 200 maximum. That's
typically allowed for all other commercial uses in Walnut Creek and our next item on the agenda
will be our proposed sign ordinance update. So I'll just give you a sneak peek. So it is being
updated to allow 150 square feet of sign area for business park zone. So this is well within
that or below that. So staff does support both sign exceptions but is requesting planning
commissions input. And this is the sign area from dogs. I take that back because there's
also the littles and that's probably another 20. So 64 dogs and averaging 13 cats but we
can expand again we can double that capacity to 26 and of course you know in
an emergency situation a flood of fire earthquake we can put cat kennels
around wherever we need to to help support the community in times of crisis
and I just wanted to touch on something you said that is there a ratio between
I'm going on vacation versus I'm in a domestic abuse situation so right now our
Our plan is that we will always keep at least 20%
of our capacity available for the community support
components.
And then the other 80% could potentially be.
But if I don't have a bunch of people demanding my services
right now, and I've got 40% of my capacity
is being asked for from the community.
And unfortunately, we're seeing more and more need these days
than absolutely that ratio could be.
But our plan is always never to let
that ratio fall below 80-20.
80 to support the programs basically
and generate the revenue,
20 to provide the programmatic support.
Yeah, that's a healthy number.
Yeah. Yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comments?
From what I, it's interesting when I was, you know,
reading about the DRC, you know, calling this a campus
and wanting to have some consistency,
the one thing that should be stated also
because it used to just be a flat field out there
is the fact that I do see that you're providing
sustainability with water treatment,
because I saw CSW's report,
with all the drainage management areas for all around.
So you also have a sustainability component
leading to that in addition to all the various studies.
Okay, if there's no other questions for the applicant,
then I will go ahead and,
well, they talked for what, 30 seconds?
I believe I got both of you.
Are there any other public speakers that would like to speak?
No.
Excuse me.
Okay, well, normally, I would give you an additional five minutes to rebut what anybody
is saying, but you're good there.
So I am going to now close the hearing portion and bring it back to my fellow commissioners
for discussions, questions. I'm very impressed with the report, the staff work on this, very
impressed with the architecture and the plans, excited about the opportunities this will present
not only for people who live in Walnut Creek but for a whole disaster response, regional,
regional response that that is needed that people are looking for and that
we're gonna need more and more over time so I would like to make a motion if we
are ready I'm ready so I would move to adopt the draft resolutions attachments
one and two adopting the negative declaration and approving the
following entitlements conditional use permit design review tree removal
permit and sign ordinance exception. Second. And I will conduct the roll call. Commissioner Moran.
Yes. Commissioner Cown. Yes. Commissioner Strongman. Yes. Commissioner Kwok. Yes.
Vice Chair Klot. Yes. Chairperson Neating. Yes. And the motion passes.
Thank you for coming or coming back because we've seen you before.
now on to what quite a few of us have been discussing this for a long time and one of
our fellow commissioners took it to the finish line so it is item 4b sign ordinance update
And I believe, Simra, you're doing both.
Actually, I have health today.
So I'll just start with the introduction.
So good evening again, Chair and members of the Commission.
Simra Gill with the City.
So next up, we are presenting the proposed update
to the City Sign Ordinance.
As you know, the current ordinance dates back to 1992.
And while it's been amended over the years,
there hasn't been an actual comprehensive update
in more than 30 years.
So it's definitely time to bring the ordinance up to date.
And the update will essentially modernize
the regulations, make them more clear,
and provide greater flexibility for property owners
as well as businesses that are looking
for sign opportunities for identification
for their businesses.
And with that, I will turn it over to Michael Gibbons
and Nikki Sanchetta are signed consultants
with Mintier-Harnish.
They've worked closely with staff on the update
and they will walk through the process
and the key proposed changes.
So with that, come on up.
Thank you.
Well, good evening chair and commissioners.
It's an absolute pleasure to be here tonight
to not only bring you up to speed
on what we've been working on diligently
over the last few years,
but also present to you through this public hearing
draft of that. As you recall, we met with the commission early on in this process,
received some objectives that you would like to see, ended up forming a steering committee
as part of those conversations. So it's very exciting for us to be here to finally provide
you that product for your consideration and recommendation tonight to City Council.
Brief introductions, my name is Michael Gibbons. I am a senior project manager for Mintier
Harnish and the overall project manager for the consultant team for this project.
We are with Mintier Harnish, again, we are a land use consulting firm based out of Sacramento.
We specialize in zoning codes and general plans, specific plans and our focus is really
working in the public sector.
So we don't do any private sector work, we work with cities and counties to do just this,
take in public feedback, engage with decision makers and ultimately craft and provide products
that are going to be not only representative of your residents, but also going to be implementation
tools for you as decision makers.
So tonight, here's our meeting outlined.
We're going to provide you an overview of the project.
It's been quite some time since we've seen you.
We're going to talk about goals and objectives, and then we're going to spend quite a bit
of time on describing to you what has changed and the reasoning behind that.
A lot of what will be presented tonight has come out of public comment, engagement with
our steering committee and what we try and will do tonight is make those
connections so you have an understanding of why decisions were made and why
certain amendments were are being proposed. Our overall purpose of tonight
is to present the sign ordinance to you, solicit feedback from the Planning
Commission on items that you would like to potentially see change and ultimately
what we are seeking through this public hearing is a recommendation that we could
forward to City Council for the actual zoning amendment itself. With me tonight
is Nikki Zancheta. She has been the project planner and is an associate at our firm.
Has been integral in the development of this project and she will present the remainder
of this presentation and we will both be available for questions at the end of the presentation.
Thank you so much. Thanks Michael. As Michael said, my name is Nikki Zancheta. I am an associate
planner at Minter Harness and I've been working alongside Michael and city staff through this
process to get the sign ordinance to where it is today. So just to start off, I know Michael gave
a little bit of an overview of the project and what we've been up to and what our timeline has
been, but just to give a little bit of background to this project, so the overall purpose is of
course to redo the entire sign ordinance to incorporate, bring it into a more modern format
and to address any issues that the city has seen over the years and incorporate what the city
would like to see in regards to signs and to update for clarity and consistency with other projects
in the city. So the sign ordinance was originally adopted in 1992. There's been some minor updates
since then but this is kind of the first time we're going through and and really comprehensive
comprehensively looking at the sign ordinance in terms of how it's formatted and really trying to
dig into the different types of standards and regulations that we want to kind of bring into the
the more contemporary format. The overall goals of this project are to just really clarify the
intent of signage in the city and the role of the city when it comes to signs
and how we want to make sure it we're meeting business needs while still
maintaining the community character and public safety within the city. So again
we just really want to what we're our intentions are with a lot of these
updates and the the overall update to the sign ordinance is to balance the
flexibility within the sign standards for business to meet business needs.
Recognizing that signs are really important to businesses for advertising
just their presence in the community as well as different marketing and really
gathering business to their shop fronts. But also recognizing that with that the
city is responsible for reducing visual clutter and really maintaining community
character. So these standards are really meant to strike that balance. So for our
project approach we've had as Michael said a lot of interaction with the
Design Review Commission. We formed a working group as the primary advising
body for this initial drafting process which was a member of Planning Commission
as well as a member from the Design Review Commission and we also solicited
feedback from the business community in the form of an online questionnaire and then we also
were publicizing this project through a dedicated web page on the city's website.
We've also had several internal working sessions with staff to work through feedback that we
received from public comment as well as from design review commission and working group.
So just a little bit of a project timeline. So this project was initially initiated in 2019
and there are stakeholder interviews with working group meetings and we have an initial fix-it list
but with the COVID-19 pandemic the city's priorities shifted and then come 2024 we
rekicked off this project and we kind of took a little bit more of a different approach where
was a lot more of business-oriented outreach and kind of restarted the
process of what the priorities were for the city in updating the sign ordinance.
In 2025 we had our first study session which was a joint study session with
Design Review Commission and Planning Commission and that's where we
established our working group and kind of identified some initial priorities
and issues that we wanted to see addressed as part of the sign ordinance
update. And then in June 2025 is when we started outreach with the business community. We had
an online questionnaire that really targeted business owners and property owners that operate
in Walnut Creek. And then we just through that process summarized some key themes that we're
hearing from the business community of what they want to see in the sign ordinance, what's a
priority to them, and we also had a working group meeting at this point as well.
And then in fall 2025 is when we started drafting and doing some additional research to start
having an initial draft of the sign ordinance and the initial formatting that we were going
to reorganize the sign ordinance into.
And then in September 2025, we had a second working group meeting, and this was just mainly
to discuss the initial draft, get feedback, and incorporate revisions that working group
had based on our initial draft from our outreach that we conducted.
And then all through April 2026, we went through some additional internal meetings with city
staff to revise the draft and get it to a point where it was going to be we were going
to take it to design review commission for review.
And in that time we met with the working group for a third meeting as well.
And this past July we took the sign ordinance to the Design Review Commission for review
and we got feedback from them, incorporated that feedback which led us to the draft that
we have today and are presenting to you this evening.
And then after this evening the next steps is to, with your recommendation and any modifications
the sign ordinance would be to refine that the draft and then take it to City
Council for adoption this fall. To go over some of our outreach results and
key themes that we heard from the business community as well as Working
Group and the Design Review Commission we had our questionnaire again this went
to business owners and property owners in the city and we received a total of
23 responses from a variety of businesses and property owners.
And some of the key themes that we really
heard from the community is just wanting more flexibility
within the sign ordinance and having it be just
a clear ordinance for them to be able to navigate through
and to go through the sign permit process.
Just in these four key themes, one
was visibility and location.
That was kind of top of mind for business owners.
If people can't see a sign or can't read a sign,
it doesn't do much good to them.
So visibility and location and the number of signs
available to them was really important.
A-frame signs are a really big deal.
That was something we heard repeatedly,
that A-frames are important for advertising the business,
especially to foot traffic and to also market for specials
or daily menus and things like that.
Size and design flexibility was also really important.
Notably, the business owners mentioned having flexibility
for logos and branding and for signs to be able to,
the sign standards to have the flexibility
for them to incorporate and use their branding and logos.
And then just overall process improvements
of just having the sign ordinance feel like it was,
It's easy to navigate and that the it was clear what the process was to go through the signed permitting process
And and what was available to them in terms of review with the city
with the working group study sessions, we
again as consisted of a member from Planning Commission and DRC and
our
Main feedback that we received during these working group sessions was to really
hearing that the business that business owners wanted a frame signs and developing clear standards for those so that
while allowing that flexibility the city can still have some
discretion over what those signs look like and
how where they're located in front of businesses and then establishing
standards that really promote and expand the flexibility for how many signs and the
size of signs that are available to business owners and
Then also modifying the master sign programs
That was another thing we heard from business owners and property owners is that a lot of times master sign programs are really outdated and wanting
some opportunity and incentive for those to get updated or for individual business owners to find ways to
Not to necessarily get around what's in the master sign program but more to with outdated master sign programs to
fought to be able to have an opportunity to deviate from that master sign program if it is outdated and
Then with the design review Commission we with a study session. We had this past July
Overall there was oh there's an overall support for the sign ordinance as drafted with some of these
recommendations including
providing a list of conditions that would
qualify for a minor deviation, which I'll go over in a couple slides
which is a minor deviation is a new process that we're introducing as part of this sign ordinance and then
bolstering the sign illumination requirements just to make sure minimizing impacts of light pollution and
creating a
Clear and streamlined approval for portable signs, which are
we're referring to as a frames and
to so that business owners don't necessarily need to receive a sign permit for that or an encroachment permit and
Then we've also just received feedback for more graphics and figures to illustrate the standards
So just to go over the kind of main
Changes that we made as part of this update
Just overall, we've reformatted and restructured the way that the sign ordinance is formatted.
And this includes some of the biggest things that we included were tables.
And these tables are show by zone which sign exactly which signs are allowed and the type
of permit or review approval that is needed for those signs whether it's an
exempt sign, a temporary sign permit all the way to DRC approval. We've also
included several more graphics or updated graphics and we've also made
sure to reorganize it in the sign ordinance in a way that is clear and
user-friendly. And we also wanted to update all of the language to make sure
that it's consistent throughout the document and is consistent with best practices, referring
to signs that we've seen in other jurisdictions.
And we've also, for the sign area calculation and measurement, for the sign area allowance
per zone, this was something that was mentioned in the previous item this evening.
So we are increase the current sign regulations allow for one square foot of sign area per
one linear foot of building frontage and then in addition to that there's one square foot
per 200 square feet of gross floor area of the business up to 200 square feet.
That's for all signs on the building.
So if they have four signs it all has to fit within that 200 square feet.
The proposed changes is that we're increasing the sign area per linear foot of building
frontage.
We're increasing it based on zone.
This is kind of recognizing that different zones and different areas of the city and
different businesses have different sign requirements based on where they're located.
So it's based on from 1.5 square foot per linear foot to 2 square feet per linear foot
of building frontage.
So we increased that citywide, and that's up to 150 to 200 square feet of total sign
area.
And this is just a map, the zoning map, and kind of showing within those black boxes where
This is mostly in commercial areas where we're seeing these changes having an impact.
So just to have an idea of where these changes will be applied.
Another thing that we are changing as part of this update is the sign area calculation
and measurement.
This is really more of to provide a really clear and transparent way of how we're measuring
what's included in the overall sign area.
So existing sign regulations calculate the sign area
based on a regular geometric form
around the perimeter of all sign elements.
We've just simplified that to whatever
the smallest rectangle that would encompass
all the sign elements.
And you can see kind of an image here
of what that looks like.
It's just height times width equals how big that sign area
is, even though there might be some dead space in between that.
between sign elements it's included in the sign area. This is really just more
for simplicity and transparency for people looking at the sign ordinance as
well as for staff. These are a few other examples of the yellow box is what we
would consider to be the sign area when calculating how big a sign is. We've also
made modifications to the different level of a review authority that's needed
for different types of signs.
We've really expanded the amount of signs
that can be approved by the Community Development Director.
And this is really based on signs
that were routinely approved by DRC,
and DRC felt like those can just be approved
by the Community Development Director based
on how the sign ordinance has been interpreted before.
However, we're still retaining some larger oversight
for bigger signs that might have larger impacts, such as especially master sign programs, of
course, as well as freeway oriented signs and skyline signs.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the changes that we made is adding a new process, which
is a minor deviation, and this essentially allows for applicants to apply for a minor
deviation from the set sign standards that are outlined in the ordinance, it limits
what they can request, so it's either one or two of these listed here, which is 20%
of a maximum dimensional standard, so that could include height, width, or the total
sign area, or up to one additional sign, provided that that sign is allowed in that zone or
for that business type.
This really allows for flexibility for site-specific conditions.
The applicant would have to present why they need to deviate from the signed standards
and why the existing signed standards wouldn't fit for what they need for their business,
but it allows some flexibility in the signed standards without an applicant necessarily
having to go all the way to DRC and have that extra level of review and time spent on a
sign application.
For Master Sign Programs, we've made some modifications, we've clarified the process
and the information that needs to be included as part of a Master Sign Program application.
We've also created some incentives and requirements for outdated sign programs.
believe we've established that having it be within 10, that a Master's Sign program
would need to be updated within 10 years of it first being approved just to
revisit it to see if there's modifications that can be made to meet
businesses needs and it also provides a some flexibility for limited deviations
from outdated master sign programs where essentially an individual business
that wants to have a sign that doesn't necessarily follow the master sign
program standards, they can apply for a sign permit under the sign standards
established just in the regular ordinance, even if that deviates from the
master sign program. That's really to just, it's to provide an flexibility for
those business owners if there's you know a 20 year old master sign program
and the sign ordinance aligns more with what they need for their business it's
more it's more modern and and takes into consideration what they need they can
use that instead. We've also added some new standards or clarified standards
that weren't explicitly addressed in the existing sign ordinance so we've added
added some requirements for specific land uses such as hospitals or community facilities.
Some land uses just have different needs than a standard business would for signage and
then we've also established standards for sign types that were previously not explicitly
mentioned such as A-frames or painted wall signs or cabinet signs as well which I'll
about that in the following slides.
Another update we've made is the number of signs allowed per business, and the existing
sign regulations don't regulate the number of signs allowed except for specific sign
types such as freestanding signs, but the proposed ordinance we've established a maximum
number of signs based on the sign type. So maximum number of wall signs, maximum number
of projecting signs such as like those shingle signs. And we've also established a maximum
total number of signs per business which is four signs for a standalone business and three
signs for a business that's part of a multi-tenant building. And that's mainly just to maintain
And we did that to maintain or minimize the visual impacts or visual clutter of too many
signs on a building.
There's an example here of this building as part of a multi-tenant building and would
under the new sign ordinance would exceed the maximum number of signs allowed both for
the total number of signs, because there's four signs total instead of three, as well
as what we're proposing is only one wall sign per business. This has two wall signs, and
we're also proposing only one projecting sign per street frontage, and this one has two
projecting signs on the same street frontage. So just an example of how this could impact
what we're considering of too many signs on one frontage.
Painted signs were previously prohibited in the existing sign ordinance.
We're proposing to allow them.
This is a type of sign that's becoming more and more common.
We have established standards for how big they can be, the type of where it can be located
on the building and how they have to be designed mainly that they need to be applied by a professional
painter and designed so someone can't just go up on their own and paint a sign on their
wall that there's a certain review process that has to go into it.
And we've also, because there's sometimes a little bit of a gray area between when is
a sign, a sign, and when is it a mural?
So we've created some clarification in the definition
between what's considered a painted sign,
what's considered a mural, and what the difference is
in terms of who's responsible for reviewing those.
We've also included standards for projected light signs.
Again, this is something that we're seeing
as a more modern technology for signs,
usually in more downtown areas
where there's a lot of foot traffic.
You may have seen some of these where there's a projection
going onto the sidewalk.
It has the business's name or logo.
And we've created some standards for where these are allowed,
really restricting them to only being
in the downtown pedestrian retail area,
which is where they would be most utilized.
And we've also created standards for
where it can be projected,
what the projection equipment needs to,
how it needs to be installed to make sure
that we're not creating an issue of glare
or light being projected onto other businesses
or onto vehicles.
For cabinet signs, traditionally,
these are just considered wall signs,
but there are a lot of different types of cabinet signs,
and this was one discussion that we had
with the working group where there was a desire
to kind of restrict how, where the more old-fashioned kind
of cabinet signs that you see on the bottom, kind
of those old-school cabinet signs,
and wanting to really reduce where
those are used in the city, but also those three examples that
are on the top, which a lot of the working group
felt like those were acceptable signs,
but technically still considered cabinet signs
and didn't want to prohibit that.
So we just added some standards
and it's really regarding the lighting
and how cabinet signs are internally lit.
And then a big one was portable signs currently.
They are not allowed in the city
even though they still are commonly used.
We have just created standards
that have very clear expectations
for what these A-frame signs need to look like,
where they can be located
and different display requirements for them.
So there's one portable sign allowed per business.
We've established a new portable sign
standards acknowledgement form,
which is they don't need to apply for a sign permit,
but they essentially need to submit a form to staff
that says we've met all of the requirements
of that are stated in sign ordinance
our A-frame meets the standards.
And that's essentially giving the city permission to say
if there's any signs out of compliance,
gives permission to go, you're out of compliance
and need to remove your A-frame sign from your business.
We've also established clear display hours
that they need to be removed and stored inside
at the close of business.
And we've also established removal requirements
where the city is allowed to remove any A-frame sign
from a property when it is out of compliance
with the standards.
And that can be done immediately without notice.
And that is included in our maintenance
and removal standards in the sign ordinance.
And then we have a couple topics
that we would like to get further discussion on
and get input from the commission.
But I did want to first ask
if we want to take general questions
and when we would like to do public comment as well.
I'd like to just finish this presentation
so we have everything.
Okay.
And then I promise you, we'll remember.
Okay, perfect.
Okay, so the first topic that we would like to kinda discuss
further is that as I mentioned,
we have established a sign area allowance
by zoning district, and the question is really
should maximum sign area allowance be regulated
by zoning district as we're proposing
in the updated ordinance,
or should there be more uniform citywide approach?
The potential benefit of sign area allowance by zoning district, as I mentioned, is that
it acknowledges that different areas of the city and different businesses and different
areas have different needs, different development patterns, proximity to major roadways.
So having a larger sign allowance may be more appropriate in some areas and having a smaller
sign allowance in another might make more sense.
The potential concern is that it creates an additional level of regulation in addition
to the other standards that we're requiring as part of the ordinance and that this can
make the sign ordinance maybe a little bit more difficult to navigate both for business
and property owners as well as city staff looking over signed permits.
This is just the earlier slide that is showing the sign area allowance per zone.
The second topic that we would like further input on is the overall number of signs that
we are allowing.
So the existing ordinance doesn't have regulations on the number, total number of signs that
are allowed and the question is really if this, having this added layer of a maximum
area allowance and in addition to having the maximum or having a maximum number
of signs allowed per business is necessary or appropriate. Again a
potential benefit is that it goes beyond just sign size and the total sign area
to minimize the kind of visual impact or potential visual clutter of the number
of signs associated with any given business or on any street frontage. Again
And the potential concern is that this is another added layer of regulation that could
potentially cause confusion to applicants or city staff as well as limiting some options
for businesses.
And this is the example from the earlier slide where this is a business that would essentially
be exceeding the number of signs allowed under the new ordinance.
And then just to go over some next steps in this process, so we will go through and hopefully
have a Planning Commission action tonight to adopt the draft resolution for recommending
City Council approve the sign ordinance update with any modifications that you may have.
And then once we have get feedback and emotion tonight, then we will revise the sign ordinance
based on your recommendations and then we will be presenting the sign ordinance to City
Council and then once we present to City Council we will incorporate any recommendations they
may have and produce a final document.
Okay.
What I would like to do here is I'm sure we're going to have a ton of questions for, thank
you for the presentation by the way, that was extremely thorough.
I know there was two items that you wanted
very specific feedback on, but what I'd like to do
is quickly open it up so we can hear the public first.
You don't have, oh, okay.
Well, I just, I have to ask anyways.
So if I'm seeing I have no speaker identification cards
on this item, and there's nobody here that wants to talk,
So Claire, is it okay if I now just bring it back to?
If you have questions, just keep the...
Okay, perfect.
Okay, I wanted you to get a second to rest.
I appreciate that.
Can you come back up?
Of course, of course.
Okay, would you mind going to the topic number one, please?
Yes.
What I'd like to do is be able to...
I see this as a homework item.
So what I'd like to do is be able to discuss
each topic first, and then if there's any other topics based on the various
documentation that we have from the agenda report, then we can go over it
there then. Is that okay?
Just to clarify, this is the part of the hearing where we are
asking questions of the consultant.
What I would like to do is give feedbacks very specific to each topic first, and then we can open it
still to the consultant to any other general topic. Do we close the hearing
and give feedback afterwards or are we giving feedback during the hearing? So
typically that works as you ask the questions and then during the hearings
but since there's nobody here I would I would suggest you keep hearing open ask
the questions close it and then you bring it back for feedback then we can
discuss right so now let's ask the questions on topic number one while I
have it open which is sign area allowance by zoning district so before
we bring that for discussion on the questions that folks would like to ask
for our discussion later sorry I'm confused yes they make a mess I think
Claire, the idea is that we ask questions now
while the public hearing is open, correct?
Yes, if you have just first fundamental questions
or basic questions, you should ask them now
and then you can close public hearing
and then bring it back.
Thank you for the discussions and feedback.
I will ask a general question on have you presented
this thing to the business community
and what is their feeling of it?
So we have posted this to the website, I believe.
And we've also, I believe, city staff met
with the business community.
We weren't present for that, so I'll defer to staff.
Yeah, staff did meet with Walnut Creek Downtown.
We've also been coordinating
with our economic development team
who has multiple connections into our community.
So for example, I know we've had some discussions
with the Shadelands Business Improvement District as well.
So I can't say we've met with every single business owner,
but we've definitely had feedback loops with the community.
And their feedback was?
A little bit ranging, generally positive,
generally in approval.
For example, the Walnut Creek downtown,
they had some extra questions regarding the A-frame,
proposals within the ordinance.
They also wanted clarity on understanding if,
I call them descriptor lines.
I'm not sure if that's the terminology you use, Nikki.
But so if it's, I think the example was Dragon's Arch
and then underneath it was restaurant cuisine
or something along those lines.
So that bottom line being this descriptor,
businesses in the downtown wanted to make sure
that that would be permissible.
And then the last thing that we did spend some time on
was the regulation of neon signs.
OK, thank you.
I think perhaps your question, or at least my question,
is for the two questions we're being asked tonight,
topic one and topic two, was that exact question
asked of the business community?
And if so, what did you hear?
For these two specific questions, they weren't asked to the business community directly
as they're being asked here.
We did ask about, as part of our business outreach, did ask about the number of signs.
We did not ask about the sign area allowance by zoning district.
That is something that is common in other jurisdictions to have kind of overall sign
allowance by zoning district varying from the intensity of the commercial use.
I'll add a little to that and Michael or Nikki please chime in because I know I'm still a
little bit new here but it's my understanding that in a lot of the early Intel that we did
coordinating with the community that there were concerns that our code was a little challenging
to read, it wasn't, you know, super navigation friendly.
And so as you can see on the screen here, the potential benefit versus the potential
concern, that's sort of why we're reaching out towards the commission about this question
is if we were to do it by zoning district or if we were to limit the number of signs,
are those, are we adding regulation layers that are too challenging to navigate when
And we know that one of our main purposes of this update
is to make it more streamlined and make it easier
and more understandable.
So do you feel that these additional layers
are difficult to understand?
Are they difficult to utilize?
So I guess a follow-up question would be
in the other cities and areas
that are using the zone tables.
I noticed that we have what seems to me
to be a clear zone table
or you could just look at your zone.
Has that, in your experience with these other cities,
have there been confusion or challenges around the zone use?
I would, I don't believe so and Michael might be able
to talk more about different sign ordinances
that we've written and if there's been feedback
from city or county staff after it's been adopted,
if there's further confusion.
Usually once it's in a tab, using the tabular format
is a way that makes it clear of you can find your zone
and then kind of, as long as it's clearly described
as to all the standards that you need to follow,
but I will also defer to Michael as well.
Yeah, absolutely, wonderful question.
So it is a typical best practice that we see in communities
and it very much relates also to how applicants
are gonna look at allowable land uses.
You go to your table, you find your land use
And then you look at what the appropriate entitlement is for that.
That is an additional layer that we've brought in, because we thought that was, that would
provide better clarity.
Also making that a tabular format as opposed to paragraph format is also kind of, is much
more user friendly as well, and something that a lot of the signed applicants that we
work with and a lot of the jurisdictions that we work with is something that they've expressed
to us has been a lot of a benefit.
I think if when you pair kind of that regulation along with our additional allowances, I think
it ends up being a much better product.
So yeah, generally speaking, that is the general approach, best practice approach for communities
to regulate signs, something that we incorporated here.
Any other questions?
Well, I just would add the tables seem very straightforward if I know my zoning.
So as a business owner, I mean, that could be a risk, I mean, might not, they might know
their hairdressing products better than their zoning.
The second topic where you're talking about numbers of signs and in addition to total
sign area that seems like adding another question on a simple question like if
it's total sign area I can do it with two or one or whatever it's the
number that is allowed that seems more complicated to me just off the top of my
head but I don't know if anybody else agrees I think on that I would just add
a follow-up is there an example where there's a need for an overall number of
signs because in the example that was given the number for or number three
total number of signs wouldn't be an issue because you already couldn't have
two of this kind and two of this kind so the total number would have been
irrelevant so is there a use case for the total limit? I don't have a use case off
off the top of my head are available for tonight, but that is, for this one, if you're correct
in that, if there was, since there's already that layer of, you can only have one wall
sign or one projecting sign, then in a new, it would eliminate that need for that total
maximum number of signs. And the total maximum number of signs is per business. So that also
kind of applies to I think the the biggest use case would be a business that's on like a corner
property where it would be it would be a total maximum number of signs for the entire business
would be if it's a standalone business, four, so they can have four signs on each building
frontage. It's a maximum number of signs of four per business.
So while we're on the topic of number of signs, by the way, it was a pleasure to work with
you, Nicky and Michael. I really appreciated seeing how the process came to fruition from
the beginning with the survey of the business community, the feedback that we had in the
working group, as well as all the other input from city staff.
One of the things that I think we had discussed at some point during the working group was
what do we do with signs that become nonconforming when the sign ordinance is updated?
And so can we elaborate a little bit more on the amortization of the nonconforming signs,
as well as how would that interface with the minor deviation process that allows for one
additional sign or the 20% increase in the total sign area.
Great question.
For the nonconforming sign, I might ask Michael to bring up that section for the nonconforming
signs.
But I believe we have it so that for nonconforming signs, it's not going to be that the business
This is not conforming with the updated sign ordinance, not going to be asked to remove
signs unless the sign needs to be removed just based off of maintenance, but you might
have that pulled up.
The nonconforming signs is located that section is on page 47 and 48.
to interrupt, but I believe it's treated very similarly to non-conforming structures, right,
they're allowed to exist until some future date when they're modified or looking to expand or
change, etc. Question regarding if we decide to have different standards for different
zones, who makes the determination of what zone gets what sign standards?
Yeah, so we have grouped the zones for commercial office
and mixed-use districts.
We've grouped these kind of based on the intensity of uses,
just looking at the types of land uses
and intensity that is allowed in those zones.
So for the kind of that lower, that 1.5 square foot
per linear foot is for more general commercial mixed use
areas.
And then we have a little bit of a higher allowance
in the pedestrian retail.
That's mainly just because those tend
to be smaller storefront businesses.
And having a larger amount per linear square footage
leads to a space for a sign allowance
that businesses can work with,
and then that larger 200 square feet of sign area allowances
for larger commercial uses.
So we've really tried to group it based on
the intensity of uses that are,
and how those zones are being used currently.
Thank you.
Any other questions on topics or general topics?
Can I add one more thing to the non-conforming sign?
Sorry, I wasn't reading the details close enough.
So yes, they get to exist
unless they alter or change or expand, et cetera.
But as I read further on,
it does say that non-conforming signs shall conform
to the provisions of this chapter within 15 years
of the date in which the sign is deemed non-conforming.
So we do have a little bit of a timetable there
for amortization.
Question.
Minor detail.
We have several painted signs on buildings
that are more historical than they are advertising
the actual business that's there right now.
What happens to those?
Those would be able to retain and perpetuity.
The idea is not to make this more restrictive process
as much as it is to kind of allow those
those expressions by no means is there an interest in having those be
okay thank you any other questions before I close the public hearing for
discussion and maybe I have one more follow-up I think the the the second part
to your to your question Commissioner was how does this then mesh with the
minor deviation process and so this could potentially be an opportunity
where there is a business right now that may be nonconforming there this process
through the minor deviation process could allow that if they were to submit an application.
So it is an opportunity for what right now might be considered nonconforming to bring
a business into conformance, which I think collectively would be a good effort.
Perfect.
Thank you.
What I'd like to do is I'm just looking at the staff report for which clearly outlines
the two topics and the first one which is page 12 talks about the sign area
allowances by zoning district which to me this makes sense especially since we
there's there's three different buckets if you will for zoning districts and it's
very similar to where to how our objective residential and commercial
objective standards are written which this city spent an incredible amount of
creating those. I hear you, Vice Chair Cloble, about not knowing what zoning
district you are in, but the city has a ever upgrading GIS platform that you can
Google and you can go on and it's like a parcel finder and you can find. I'm like
always just amazed at how many more layers of GIS information is on there so
what I'd like to do is is bring this topic which you can see again on page 12
and it has that table format for the three different types commercial office
and mixed-use districts. Awesome. Whether whether we feel right staff is
seeking commission direction or whether we feel that it's appropriate to
differentiate by zoning just like any land use would be have it an objective
standard or not. Are you taking a straw vote then or? We're so part of what we
need our homework is to provide direction. I'm just following the
staff report. So one of the use cases that came up to me when I was looking at
how we should do the whether to do uniform signs or whether to do it by
zoning is that sometimes you know often when we're looking at new construction
or renovations to businesses in the course of the application they'll find
out what their zoning is and so I think by the time they get to what do we want
to do with the signs and the design of that to your question earlier about the
what zone am I in often the applicant will know okay I know that for the
duration of this project and the work with city stuff that I'm in a certain
commercial zone and so I just need to read down the table and find out what
kind of sign I want I can use the visuals in the signed ordinance to
identify am I looking at the right sign and then I can identify what is the what
is the allowable sign from there so I think the way it works the benefit of
the table is that it meshes very well with the overall application process and
that's where I think it's very responsive to the users of the sign
ordinance any other comments before I give my comment I I completely agree and
And we've seen a more swift process even with agenda items coming here where it's a beautiful
thing to be able to see that objective standard list and you just go check, check, check,
check, check, check.
Everybody knows exactly.
So I think we have a unanimous yes on the direction on whether we wish to provide differentiation
of sign area allowances, okay?
So that was homework item number one for us.
Homework item number two is overall number of signs, which is the establishment of a
maximum of four permanent signs for a standing loan, three for a business with multi tenant.
And so that is what we need to provide feedback on, on whether these numerical limits are
appropriate.
So if I can open the discussion again.
I think the way that I envision, especially with the nonconforming signs, what do we do
with existing businesses that when the signed ordinance is updated will have to move into
compliance with the signed ordinance.
And this was a question that came up in the working group.
And so I think the 15 years of to amortize nonconforming signs gives businesses enough
time to determine okay you know as as we move into the future as we come up with
more innovative ways to advertise businesses because you know we have new
projected signs projected light signs and we have new other sign types that
the existing code didn't consider previously and so there's some degree of
flexibility in built into the proposed site and ordinance with the what do we
to do with the nonconforming science.
Together, if we take the amortization
of the nonconforming science together
with the minor deviation process,
I think that allows businesses to say,
hey, if my business becomes nonconforming
with the new sign ordinance,
but I believe that I would benefit from a minor deviation,
then that is one of the avenues
that businesses have available to them
to maintain their existing sign, their signs.
For the record, I closed the public hearing portion.
I thought I said it, but I'm tired.
So I'm just, for the record,
thank you so much, Commissioner Clauch, for that.
Vice Chair Klop, you sit next to each other.
I know, it's bad.
Klop.
So I will just repeat my comment
that I feel like adding an overall number of signs
condition to the already existing maximum sign area
allowances just makes it more complicated.
We should just stick with one definition,
maximum sign area allowance.
But that's my opinion.
I disagree.
I think that, I mean in the Williams-Sonoma example,
well that's a bad example,
But I think that asking businesses to count to three
or count to four is easy enough.
And I think it's a matter of the messaging
in addition to the actual ordinance.
Because as the previous topic number one we saw,
a lot of the problems can be solved with a table, right?
And I'm not saying that topic number two
applies exactly like that.
But what I am saying is that I think,
I also think there should be a limit on the number of signs.
Just we can't have a world where there's just simply,
because there are ends of rounds of what a business could do
and then we've got 12 signs.
So I take the opinion that I think four
for standalone building, three for like remember,
where strip mall, I think, you know,
is kind of the, you're not, you're shaking your head at me,
is make sense.
So I'm in favor of at least capping
and putting a number on it.
even if there's an additional layer of regulation.
But I think that can be circumvented
just with clearer guidance.
And chiming in after that a little bit
is if a business decides that they feel
they need five signs, they could come
and apply for a variance and go through the entire process.
And we get to deny it or approve it.
That's the deviation, right?
No, I wouldn't necessarily, well, possibly the deviation,
but it could be a full-blown hearing.
Where they have to come back here.
Yes.
Yeah, the findings would have to be made for a variance.
That's a state, of course, a state process.
There's very specific findings.
I guess theoretically someone could apply for a variance
for additional signs.
We feel that it kind of, we've built in that extra step,
so maybe they wouldn't actually have to go
through that process, which is called a minor deviation,
which, yeah, I think it allows a 20% flexibility
on any dimensional standard
and then up to one additional sign.
So if they exhausted that route,
then I think what the other tool actually
that might be at their disposal
might be a master sign program.
That would give them the most flexibility,
but that is discretionary.
So they're kind of opening themselves up
to put some potential standards and conditions.
And if I could just add,
I believe that minor deviation section
also allows city staff to evaluate and see,
is this something we can allow
through that 20% minor deviation
or is this something we don't want to support?
And then we escalate it to Design Review Commission
for consideration.
Oh, can I ask Commissioner Kwok,
was the purpose of this having
an overall number of signs limit
to share the intent of the city
that we do want to reduce visual,
we want to minimize visual clutter.
So this is what the ideal is.
And then if someone wants to deviate,
then they would need to go through that process.
Yes.
So one of the points that we had raised
was how do we strike a balance between allowing
sufficient advertisements of businesses,
but also maintaining the character of Walnut Creek,
where we, when we're moving through
the streets of Walnut Creek, we're not,
our eyes are drawn to the main landmarks of Walnut Creek.
So for example, Mount Diablo,
significant buildings that we like,
other places that we may be trying to find
that are not necessarily the business
that we're walking by with
that could have a lot of extra signs.
So the balance of visual clutter,
the balance of sufficient advertising
and the avoidance of visual clutter,
this is what this line is designed to address.
Okay, thank you.
Given that I am comfortable
having the overall number of signs limit.
My question for staff is, I know there's a maximum,
is there a minimum so someone could be absurd
and do conjecture, just, I see both points.
I see your point about like why, if you know,
because it's interesting,
because in a land use designation,
you have typically a range of density.
And so I, for some reason, I thought in the sign area,
oh, you don't need to have the number of signs
because you have a min and a max.
It's just the max.
any other thoughts on having a max four or five? I can be swayed by my
okay then I think we I think you have a staff your answer on that was our
homework item talk give our thoughts on topic one and topic two is there anything
else that we need to do to properly send this off to City Council just any other
items that you might want to discuss that weren't specifically asked of you
if there's anything that you would like revised or honed in or happy to take
that motion I will you know I'll say one thing when I was reading this like
having sat on the Planning Commission for a few years now it was a bit of
nostalgia when I was reading I was like I remember that you know like there was
the the car shop or this or there was so many different things and I was like it
I could tell that this was written in such a way
that it was from previous experience.
So, I will entertain a motion
if anybody would like to make one.
All right.
I'm very pleased to make the motion
that we adopt the resolution recommending City Council
adoption of an ordinance, amending Title 10, Chapter 8,
sign regulations of the Walnut Creek Municipal Code
to comprehensively update the city's signed ordinance.
Okay, roll call.
Commissioner Moran?
Yes.
Commissioner Cown?
Yes.
Commissioner Strongman?
Yes.
Commissioner Kwok?
Yes.
Vice chair, Klaw?
Yes.
Chair Needing?
Yes.
And the motion passes.
Wonderful, now on to, thank you so much.
Now on to item number five,
which is commission considerations.
Any discussion among the commission?
Last time, we were very chatty.
No.
And then next, number six,
commission member and staff reports or announcements.
So just your bi-monthly or bi-weekly reminder
that you have a joint commission meeting
on the general plan for the existing conditions report
on October 22nd.
And then, because the chair had pointed out
our parcel viewer, I just give it a shout out
case anyone is listening or not aware of it on our website you could navigate to
what we call parcel viewer it is a map of the entire city you can type in your
address or if you know your assessor parcel number it will pull up that
property and it'll give you all kinds of good information such as your zoning and
as you know there's so many hard-working team members here at the city so a
little shout out to Ben and JV who keep that alive and working for us so that's
it. Thank you. And with that, we will adjourn. Thank you.