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 um commissioners want to add or bring up?

Prior to that.

Okay.

And um call.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Newsom appears to be running late, I believe.

Uh Commissioner Pros?

Commissioner Case here.

Vice Chair Riley.

Here, 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 evening, Chair and members of the design review commission.

Is this on?

Can't hear it on my end.

All right.

Curtis Sawyer, uh, associate planner.

Tonight, we're gonna get into something a little bit different, something exciting.

Um it's not just your typical residential or commercial designer view subject up for discussion and deliberation tonight.

Tonight we get the expand our horizons and talk signage exciting stuff.

Um staff have been working diligently um to craft and revise our sign ordinance that protects community charm and character, bell uh brings balance, encourages creativity, and even introduces introduces technology.

Uh, you and the public may be wondering um why now?

Why are we here this evening?

Uh, to answer that.

It's really been quite some time since we've had the opportunity to provide a comprehensive um overhaul and update to our sign ordinance.

Um, jumping in, uh, the product before you this evening um 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 um your feedback and feedback from our working group, um, stakeholders and members of the community um and ultimately go before the Planning commission for further consideration, and then ultimately adoption before the council.

Um with that, I would like to introduce our consultants, Michael Gibbons and Nikki Zenchetta with Mentir Harnish.

Um they're here to review the draft with you, go over our presentation.

With that, we also have a uh about eight questions lined up specifically.

Um so with that, I'd like to introduce the consultant team and come on up, guys.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Nikki Zanchetta.

I'm a social associate planner with Mentir Harnish, and with me is Michael Gibbons.

He's the project manager through this project.

And so as Curtis said, we're 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 going to be talking about tonight.

We want to 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 want to 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 was 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 want to 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.

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 is the primary 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 visual clutter that signs can have the uh 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, so 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 uh gone through that a couple times.

Um, and then we also wanted to solicit feedback from the public.

We did more of a focused uh public outreach mainly to the business community and property owners, just because they're 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 web page through the city's website just to provide information about the update.

We also uh 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 is 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 and 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 uh it was we took a whole new approach to the expectation of the project, and we it was kind of shifted to be more business oriented outreach, and we restarted the project with the city tour and reassessed what this 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 as 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 the 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's 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 standalone 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 little bit outdated and wanting to have provisions that encouraged 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 want to be able to do with signs and what they want to 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 the seems signs are getting brighter and brighter, so making sure that there's no in it's not impeding on any nearby residential uses.

For A-frame signs or temporary signs in the ordinance, we refer to them as portable signs just to be a little bit more all-encompassing.

Business owners find A-frame signs are really important to their business and making sure that they can have promotional 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 meet the city's needs.

The working group did agree that their A-frame signs should be allowed, but there should definitely be some guardrails 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-frames, so having a size limit, 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 it what the standards aren't overly prescriptive.

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 for 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.

For the process improvements, the business owners did feel that the that the ordinance could be more clear, use less jargon, and just have clear outline of what the process is for different sign permits and how to go through a minor deviation process and sign exceptions as well.

So through the working group, there was suggestion for support 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, um, kind of an overall change that we have made is reorganizing and clarifying the sign ordinance as a whole.

So this has 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 there and making sure that everything that we've were mentioning in the ordinance has a corresponding definition for clarity.

We've also added several new graphics, there's several tables all meant to help create as visual aids and just clarity for for what the written standards are.

For administration and review authority, we have really expanded administrative approval and trying to reduce how many sign permits have to go to DRC for approval, and uh we really wanted to retain the DRC approval for things that are 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 sign standards established in the ordinance, and those are we've made it so it's up to 20% of any maximum standard, so say sign area.

If someone wants to increase it by 20% or less, then that can go through just a administrative approval from the director, or if they want to add one additional sign that's already permitted in the in the zone and the sign type.

So those 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 sign size is or the number of signs, and just helps to reduce the constraints and 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 their discretion can always refer a minor deviation request to the DRC if they find that 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 also we did a pretty good overhaul of the process for master sign program updates and and when the 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 really 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 uh for property owners to update those master sign programs.

We also created similar kind of to a minor deviation, but any 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 sign permit through the city, and it doesn't have to meet the master sign program standards, it just has to meet the city's sign 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 different sign types.

So whether it's an exempt sign and they don't need to apply for a permit, or if they need a sign 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 sign standards that will meet their needs.

And establishing standards for sign types that were clearly not uh 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, and 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.

Painted signs 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 shipping or anything like that.

We wanted to create some, it's we want to treat it like any other sign.

It's a real it's also can be a really affordable way for other for businesses to have a sign up, and we wanted we wanted to ensure that painted signs remained 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-frames signs you can have, which is only one for business where allowed.

And we also wanted to create the 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 processes, and that has a timeline of believe we put 30 days, but for A-frame signs, we 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 of the sign ordinance, and it would follow the same process of, you know, how do you get your sign back?

But the city can go and remove it at any time.

And we did for 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 this sign ordinance.

And then projected light signs, this is again a 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 it 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 gonna cause any harm to the 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 cabinet, there are cabinet signs that aren't necessarily like the image you see here.

They can be might not be that traditional light fully lighted cabinet sign, and wanting to ensure that there's 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 uh 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 outside, we'll go over the eight questions that 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 gonna be should development with deep setbacks be allowed additional sign area to improve visibility.

Question 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?

Sign 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, ah, 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 I 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 uh 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 um weigh in on that too.

Yeah, thank you.

Um in my time with the city, we have seen sign exceptions for all sorts of things, right?

Letter height, um for um additional signage along a particular linear frontage of a building facade.

So to answer your question, um the most common exceptions that we do see from the applicant's perspective.

Um I'm confident that we have adequately built that in to the update working with the working group as well, um, receiving staff input and feedback, um, I believe that uh that has been addressed.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh I have a question.

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 do they quantify that?

Did they say patrons say couldn't find you?

Or was there any specific feedback they gave that kind of put that point in your presentation?

Um, 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.

You 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, of they just wanted more signs and bigger signs, and that was kind of the extent to what they would describe, but other uh business owners and property owners described that some of the sign, the current sign area requirements uh were limited enough that they were not able to include a logo or branding or the specific type of font that they use, um, the wasn't they weren't able to quite fit it into the sign area that is currently prescribed, and uh you know, in a way where it was gonna be um visible and legible to uh who they were, whether that's from a vehicle or from a 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 um 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 uh vehicles to see from further away, and um just from that visibility perspective, but they didn't give necessarily precise parameters for that.

Thank you.

To uh further elaborate on that as well, um, to piggyback off Nikki's points, um 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 um square footage allotments, and quite often it can even be um just unique constraints to a particular building frontage.

Um maybe there's a lot of visual massing and clutter around a particular storefront.

Um perhaps there isn't, and it's actually standalone and isolated from adjacent businesses and far set back um from the public right-of-way, which would um typically be the request for oh well we're we're set so far back and we're the only um business and in on this side of the street, things like that, right?

Um that would be rationale um for uh a requested exception or um an increased um sign size or type.

Any more questions?

Okay.

All right.

Well, let's dive into these uh 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 uh for example are in a shopping center, so there's a whole parking lot between uh 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 um increase sign area should be granted either at the administrative level as part of the well that well, whether that should be as kind of baked into the standards themselves, whether it should be approved at administrative level through uh minor deviation process, or if that should be something that needs to go to DRC.

So what where that would be approved if we wanted to allow that.

And how did you want us to 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.

Um if you'd like to collect your thoughts for a few seconds, that's fine.

Um we can jump right in or go in order starting about to put you on the spot, Phil, but if you'd like to lead it off being a part of the working group.

Um Thanks for that.

Yeah.

So I I'd say to Commissioner Case's point, I 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 I very much support the second item, the 20%.

I think I think that's good.

Um 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.

Um so yes, I 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 there's 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 I think we we have to let if we're gonna have have that process of master sign program, which I think is important to have for large properties.

I think and I think that uh, you know, it 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 it's I feel like um, you know, first off, you have to take the shopping centers and and large properties with master sign programs out of the discussion.

This is this is one-off things, right?

It's it that's really what it's about.

To me, it's like I think the answer to the first question is is no.

I think I think they should have I think we should give them flexibility in those situations to come to design review commission and ask but I don't uh 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 some something like that that that is a table that they can understand and that was my thought too define large I mean if we make some of it right define large yeah objective and what the 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 I'm always like a little bit wary of the things that are require extra approval if it's something ninety percent of the time we're gonna be like yeah so I 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.

Um 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 so we the read the first bullet point uh allowed additional sign area does that mean the sign is simply bigger or does that mean there is two signs, right?

And so it's like a sign.

Yeah it would be the sign is larger.

So maybe then I'm a support I'm not sure I I believe a large is on is necessary but I think it's also conditional.

If you have a s uh a str uh a street near the sign of the street because you've got a big setback to a single location single building single business I don't know the need to have two signs for that.

But if it's a a sign that has three businesses in the building then maybe sure then each one that can have a sign maybe sort of lesser of a sign um but you know yeah I I think allowing them to distinguish themselves I think is relevant but simply to have because because it's set back they get a second sign I don't know that I agree with that.

And it's it's inter 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 no so it it would 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 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 in 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 there's a provision that I think it's a hundred 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 you 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 but I believe that's an uh don't quote me on that I believe it's a hundred feet um setback from the from the street.

Okay.

Yeah um so the first thing I think of when I see this is I worked for many years with 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 hundred foot setback, but it does it is very difficult to see from the street.

So I think that if we are discussing these this 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, it we lose a lot of places where that wouldn't really work.

What if we like 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 yeah with so having kind of a list of different criteria and 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 um I guess uh the other question this could be more discussion where 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 um and what those sp how specific we want to get with that criteria.

I just looked into our current current ordinance um I believe that's attachment one with your agenda packet um this item reads as follows building set back from street the tenants of a building which is set back one hundred feet or more from the street may increase the wall sign area otherwise permitted to face such street by twenty five percent 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 that's how the current ordinance reads.

I like it the way it is I I think now to her point I mean I think there there may be other criteria that would allow the increase and I I don't know what they would be.

I trees I I think that if if there's impeded visibility due to any condition it would trigger an ability to to have an exception granted.

I mean trees there's right at Ruth Bancraft 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 there like as you said there's lots of streets street um impediments as you're driving down a street that don't allow you to see i a lot of things like parking and um so I I think that if we're looking at somebody's business we should look at if it if they are readily identifiable to the average consumer you know the average person walking or um driving you see that be able to to see it.

That's something you often see as well in the shadows area with the medical practices that's true.

Very hard to see the signs um and I can imagine for those businesses it would be frustrating.

We we've seen them come in with requests for exception.

Right.

Yeah.

So yeah how do we how do we um but they have there's other I mean 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.

Right that's why and that they don't have there's no other opportunities available 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 but I think I do understand to your point that um that the Luth bank bankrupt example, you know, you go when you as as as I've gone to, I mean, you turn that corner, you could go back past it pretty quickly.

And if you don't 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 that's there serves, but is there something else?

Is there something else you want to add other than a hundred feet?

That's that's how I would change it.

Would be um an obstruction beyond their control.

I don't know whether it'd be a light pole or whatever it is.

Yeah, and and I think also partly to so partly to the 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 tw you know 20% larger sign for your wall sign, or do we want to kind of provide and that if we do that 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 we it doesn't necessarily need to be fully comprehensive of what it could you know we could include if your business is set back uh 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 of 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 the question here is do we want that specific criteria that would automatically allow it or have it go to the director for review, um 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 live in that area, so I see a lot of people coming from the north and they have make a U-turn and they go back around.

So perhaps part of the consideration is are there other public works improvements impediments that keep people from making that term when they see the sign or something because you know all these businesses are competing for other people's money.

And so, you know, if if they're live missing out because there's an impediment built by the city, but yet down the street is another similar business, is they may lose on opportunities.

I support the second thing you said, which was make it at the director's discretion.

That's that's where I'm at.

Um, but they need to give they need to have that discretion.

And I think we need to I would support that discretion on my end.

I would I would do I think that um to the extent that we can make the make the exception objective.

So we could say twenty percent.

You can have up to twenty percent.

Your first first path is to go to the director, and 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 um 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 gonna even be possible, but it may be possible if you meet that would be my only addition.

We we as we know we have these projects come to us that severely impede the ability of people to see around a corner.

So if I think if they show that they need more help, whether it's a monument sign out front or something to get identification in 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 uh so I know we've taken a lot of notes on that.

I think we have a clear direction of 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 uh conditions might be.

Okay, great.

Um are there any other comments before we move on to the next discussion question?

Great.

All right, so discussion question number two is should the maximum size for wall signs for hotels and motels be increased.

Um so we have already, as part of the update, increased it from what was 25 square feet to 50 square feet for a wall sign.

Uh there is a justification for increasing it further, um especially for proximity to freeways.

Uh usually hotels are very much car travel oriented businesses, and uh uh there are several jurisdiction that jurisdictions that do allow for a larger sign uh above 50 square feet as an exception for uh for hotels and motels, but we did want to get um 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 stop on that.

Oh good evening, Commission Michael Gibbons, uh project manager.

So the real uh I think the impetus for this was the thinking about looking at like what are our hotel signage that we look at now?

And 25 square feet when we're actually looking at like what the base minimum didn't really support normal hotel signage, and then looking at even further, we went, okay, 50 feet, it's a significant increase, but does 50 feet still achieve kind of these base minimum standards for a Hilton or a home two suites?

Um, and so while we'd see justification for increasing it to 50, I think the question is 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.

Um so we have proposed, I think it's just more out of kind of a best practice.

We're not seeing small hotel signs.

They're becoming larger and larger, 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.

I'll throw out an opinion.

My gut reaction is I feel like increasing it by double is fine.

I don't know.

I I feel like everybody is using like GPS in their phone to find their location anyway.

I don't know if a hotel needs a sign.

I I'd actually feel differently if it was like a business.

Um, this one feels like you've already booked a room.

You know where you're going to just for me it's if we make it even bigger and it's lit up all night, who is that going to affect?

So I think about the it used to be club sport, but I don't think it's club sport, the renaissance.

And there's town homes 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 um 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 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 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 like.

So answering the first question.

You're supporting the first question.

Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

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 correct.

Yes.

Right.

Okay.

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 to through the process of a freeway-oriented sign.

And just to clarify for us, the 50 is the maximum.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Any further comments on this question before we move on.

Okay, so question number three.

So how to address routes of significance and standards for freeway oriented signs or specifically skyline signs.

And just so for the point of this is whether the so for freeway-oriented signs, it's typically that skyline signs are allowed, or a larger sign is allowed, um, and if that sh that kind of standard uh should also apply to BART tracks and other routes of regional significance, um, and how we're defining those routes of significance and which one should qualify, um, and how we're referencing to a list of uh routes of significance where there's going to be heavier traffic, uh, faster speeds, and does that warrant have a business of being allowed to have a larger sign similar to how we allow larger signs for freeway-oriented um businesses.

So my first inclination would just be say no.

Um I think that would 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.

Um, and then secondly, on the roots of significance, again, you know, the f my first thing I think of is Ignatio Valley Road, and it's already very urban, and I don't think we want to lean into Crete making it more urban by having larger signs.

So that's just my two cents on that.

I mean, I think the question is not whether you can have signs on on the bar 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 bar 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 you can't put a sign in a residential neighborhood where it wouldn't be allowed.

What this would be about would it would be about areas on BART where there's a BART track, and it's adjacent to a business.

I my my office is on Oakland.

So I look right out my window at the Bart track coming right by.

That's that's kind of what it's written to.

That's part of the reason we kind of opined in this in the in the meetings, and that's kind of why I'm glad you asked the question is and and also the second question, just is more a comment than a question, but like we have seen more than once this question of regional significance come up on ignatio.

Um, for the businesses or lognatio or crueb or whatever, and so like I think we have to be explicit, so that's that's why they're asking.

Yeah.

I feel like I don't think necessarily I don't think it necessarily should apply to a bar tracks, but I I think for me, to your point, I 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 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 a hundred feet away.

It's really like well, if you're in a BART train and you're looking at a s you're not gonna stop and go to that business.

It so I think it for me I think you would take the BART, I think you would take the bar tracks off the t the table.

I think the question is is really best example is the one you pointed out, ignatio.

It's like we've seen I don't know several times businesses come in and ask for that.

That's that to me is the key question.

Um is that um s 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, you know, we we have the what do they call them skyline signs, they're not asking about skyline signs necessarily.

That would be applicable to BART, a skyline sign, if we were to consider that.

I think we talked we take that off the table.

I think just like I feel I felt a little consensus on just scratching the word BART off here entirely.

Great, right?

We talk about routes of regional significance.

I think I'm hearing no, right?

I mean I if if we're if we're defining a route of regional significance, which is the main one that we have that people come from, you know, many other places and drive down every day, which is ignatio and or treat.

Um 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, they're also residential, they're not commercial therapy, right?

And not line with, you know, box and blocks box commercial.

It's mostly residential, big tree big by the art, it's it's almost residential.

Treat is, yeah.

Yeah.

Ignatio is a little mixed, especially.

So I mean I think I think the answer to the first question is no.

Okay.

Anybody disagree with that?

Then they ask 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?

Staff, like if you 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, they we could see some exceptions allowed for that particular property, right?

Beyond our objective standards, correct?

As opposed to having standards for it, exactly.

Which is what we do anyway.

Yeah.

So it's when we did a master sign program that faced 24680 interchange on the other side, right?

Recently, yeah.

Yeah, we did we did that one.

And it had the yeah, we yeah, yeah.

And we also did one for Ignatio on that corner right across from where they're from the what's that where where's the safe way?

Yeah, we did we did one there.

I mean, so these major these major landlords, they they do them, right?

And they so they they're available that opportunity, and I 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 uh for this, we're not we don't want it to apply to BART or routes of regional significance, correct?

I think it's status quo on this.

Okay.

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 you know more old school um cabinet signs that are internally fully internally lit, just a big box uh that's lit up.

However, there are several signs that are actually classified as cabinet signs where they might not look like these more the like the old school cabinet signs where it's you know a 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.

Um there's a there's a lot of different sign technologies out there and um what our idea was is that the city may actually want to allow those types of signs where you know 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.

Uh but we wanted to see how we can incorporate the allowing for um either externally lit, halo lit, edge lit, backlit, um cabinet signs as well.

So in your packet, you have uh three examples of allowed, and we've seen some of those where the the letters are individual and they're but they're in, yeah, with the lighting themselves and things like that.

Yeah.

Um I I agree with your choices.

Okay.

I I mean I think we've done exception for halo lit over and over and over and over and allow that one.

I recognize that.

I don't know if I recall the edge lit.

Um, like this one.

We've seen a few minutes.

Yeah, yeah.

So I guess the 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.

But yeah.

Well, we apply a lot about this.

Okay, and you guys listen to me.

Thank you.

That's my comment.

Uh 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 to about light pollution.

Are we mandating you know, down lights?

Yeah, so for externally lit, and that I would say the ex external illumination, like what you see at the top of that allowed, uh, isn't as common, but that would essentially it would any externally lit uh 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 onto the sign and not you know creating glare for pedestrians or vehicles.

Um so that would be specific to externally lit signs for, and then there are I believe we do have lighting standards for um how how bright signs can be.

I guess one of my questions is you know, uh signs that have light from below.

Right, and then the sign will reflect light up, which is light pollution.

Sure.

Yeah, we have no we have regulations about shielded light.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

And let's see maybe that's not not related to signs though.

Pardon?

That's not real that that would be a question.

So we did talk about that when we're talking about the building standards, but this this is sign standard, so I think it's 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 showing 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 I think it's a good example, but you don't want to you don't want to be light in the sky.

I mean, all all of these all of these solutions actually, because we've talked about this, right?

There the ones on they don't really illuminate the sky there 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 the the letters themselves and the edge lit is around the sign itself so I mean I I think all of them control it I think the only based on what you said the only uh exception to that would be we just don't want to light the sky 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 uh read through the uh we just site modern light pollution right what is it dark sky sorry to interrupt so that the um brightness limitations per the current code would you like me to read through that um it reads as follows no sign shall be illuminate illuminated so that the primary source of light is visible from off the property or in such a way as to cause excessive glare so somewhat vague um in no instance shall the lighting intensity of any sign whether resulting from the internal illumination or external illumination exceed 75 um candles when measured with the standard light meter and typically as staff when we're reviewing sign applications um we typically require um some sort of um let's say like stamp of approval um from a consultant demonstrating that the sign will not create adverse glare impacts um to adjacent properties um or of course like safety impacts as well yeah I still don't think that's a specific what um yeah I'm interested in you know I think what we're discussing is right we don't want them we don't want them going up it's we're talking more about light pollution migrating birds insects right cars driving um so it's beyond glare it's 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 um or just say shielded from illuminating the sky or something like that.

Or 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 down light it's it's tilted so that it's not in the driver's eyes.

Does that make sense for the external illumination correct right for external that's that 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 a in a light bulb would be if it wasn't just right correct I think just some language like that.

I don't know that's not really the right thing to say but I there's another way to say it.

That's lots of dark 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 to cabinet but just more a general lighting standard so kind of emphasizing a few more things in those general lighting standards for signs.

Yes please and so for and regarding um how it's cur 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.

I think this is fine.

I think so too.

Okay, great.

Okay, so moving on to question five.

So this is a question regarding if we should be in if uh 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 uh consider how incentives can promote uh the modernization of these uh master sign programs while reducing amendment costs and administrative burden.

So um I believe we have a the incentives we currently have we have a timeline of when the master a master sign program would need to be updated, and I believe we have in here um I believe it's 10 years.

Yeah, you have 10 years.

10 years, okay.

Uh so 10 years and then if they if the property owner that has a master sign program is uh updates it within that 10 year time frame, there's an incentive of a reduced uh application fee because it does need to go through and be re um needs to be reviewed by the design review commission.

So reducing that fee to do that, um and so that that's the current incentive that we have.

So just a discussion of of that incentive is if it's efficient enough, and if there should be any modification to that process of updating master sign programs, uh I mean to me the uh change in the signage and master sign program is actually going to be uh business driven.

You know, if it's a large development with a number of businesses, I think they'll drive that.

You know, they they want new way to draw a new business, and so they may push the developer, the landlord to go to the sign program.

I don't I'm not following why uh we would want to drive that fund that it's 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 I think it's just some the 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 uh they can choose not to, and it it basically the master sign program is in effect until it gets updated.

Um so it 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 um why we created this as uh for situations where it's for lack of better term, it's business owners feeling like they're trapped within their master sign program.

Um that's not being updated.

To further elaborate on that, just as planning uh current planning staff, we do receive um quite a few um prospective applicants come in for a sign application.

It might start off as a building permit um 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 um, you know, pretty pretty old.

So providing a little bit of flexibility and 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 in doing that, or is that just the lever the city can pull?

You know what I mean to help incentivize?

I would say um, you know, cost is um, you know, uh a factor.

Um it's more so also timing um involved um the the initial review process and timeline, the public review period and timeline, and then um additionally coming before the DRC or whatever the entitlement path looks like.

I think um the financials are a factor, but we it's bundled into the bigger issue with it just being all of it, so being um being able to be a little bit of uh provide some flexibility with that decade time frame.

That's uh a few reasons why we're exploring this incentive option.

Yeah, I don't know.

I want to 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 waiving city fees, it's like thank you, but it's not that's not anywhere near what really the cost is.

So I wonder if if if we felt comfortable that it's like they're updating it within a 10 year time frame and hopefully it's not wildly different, and that is we have included uh so the voluntary renewal incentive, um, in addition to a reduced application fee, uh it's also that it would include administrative review and approval by the community development director upon making all required findings um that we establish uh slightly earlier in the the subsection.

So there's a if they if the update is including uh just includes certain, it's not a complete overhaul, but it's just updating to uh within the uh the parameters that we have that it would just go through the community development director, not design review commission.

Okay, okay.

Good, good.

Yeah, okay.

No problem.

We got four out of five, right?

I guess just my question is um, you know, is there flip this over?

Is a way that that perhaps that uh I have a storefront in a shopping center, and we're one of 15 stores.

And if and you know as we all do, right?

There's a little community of store owners, right?

You live in this, who are part of this development, and let's say 30% of us or a third of us want, you know, want to make improvements or signs of program.

Is there a way to compel?

You know, and maybe that's maybe I'm substituting the word incentive for compel, but compel the the property owner, the landlord to say now adopt this because we've had five applications, which is you know a third of your uh membership, you know.

Now we're asking you to do a um revision to your master sign program.

You as the tenant have the right to go move to another place.

Understand that or not sign your lease or make your lease contingent.

That's that's the power you have.

Yeah, bingo, yeah.

It happens all the time.

I've worked for a lot of tenants.

My use.

And then my question that would then my question that goes back then, then why would we give an incentive?

Because, you know, owner businesses have this opportunity to move.

You can't, your your leases accommodate my needs as a business, I'm going somewhere else.

I mean, because um, there there are instances like on Olympic and stuff where the landlords don't want to do anything, you know.

That's I mean that's what we've seen.

So it's actually been good.

It's been it's actually in the end been good for the landlord because they can attract more tenants.

Um and giving them some kind of incentive is good.

I think if you have an if you know if you're Broadway Plaza or somebody like that, you you know, they're probably coming back more than they're coming back on a tighter time frame than that, asking for standard upgrades.

And there's nothing that says that you will only 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 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 you have to go pay somebody to make that change even even if it's not necessary.

That's that's that's the trade-off, right?

Uh yeah, I'm okay with incentives.

Yeah.

Okay, there is there any other any further comments on this before we move on.

All right.

So question six uh for so sign standards specific to the downtown pedestrian retail area so we did create some specific standards to this zone um it include including limited sign standards for the downtown retail area um 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 uh sign standards in the uh ordinance so it's not that they just all of a sudden only these standards apply it would be all standards in addition to these page 39 thank you so it looks like the portable sign a lot I guess it's all and I would say for these the standards that we've included it's it's mostly uh it's creating more flexibility for signs within this zone so uh having this provision that if there's some alternative design that's not already covered by this sign ordinance that um it can be allowed encouraging it to be allowed but with the approval of design review commission um it's where projected light signs are allowed and the portable signs and creating some standards for the portable signs within it um so it's really these standards are really to create more allowance than maybe in other zones for different sign types.

We spent a lot of time talking through this so I I don't have any additions.

I think the projected light sign was my suggested addition so go for it.

I think it makes sense in the downtown historic business district to allow some variances.

Yeah yeah and so to keep in 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 uh kind of meet expectations for what we shouldn't be including here it meets mine yeah sufficient great I think expressing individualized character of businesses on the buildings that have character is a good way to approach it thank you and leaving it open for like what we don't what we don't know exactly exactly perfect all right so moving on to question seven so kind of in a similar vein but sign standards by specific area so the sign ordinance it does include sign standards limited to um 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 c question here is are there other areas of the city that should that are either zones um or other areas that can be clearly defined where there should be you know specific standards that are 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.

So like what is the boundary of the downtown area?

A portion that sim correct me if I'm wrong.

A portion of downtown Maine is within the downtown core area.

Okay.

The cutoff is, I believe, the parcel north of the Ignacio Center.

Um, and that's it.

Because there's that entire other stretch 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 sign standards and making sure that things are visible as far as business.

In line with the north downtown specific plan, because there was idea for that like makers row, remember all this?

Oh yes.

So that might need its own criteria.

I also feel like the um the I can't think of the name right now, right near BART, the like TOD development, and I I you never know.

I've heard murmurs that some of those office buildings at like Ignatio Center may convert to housing.

So it's like, does that have a different you know, is there like a ground floor retail thing and then residents above that has its own character and signs?

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 come up to use them anyway.

I guess I guess the flip side the flip side is is any landlord can create a master sign program.

Right, right?

That's the flip side.

So like once again, so like you know, we looked at the poor we looked at the Porsche dealership in its entirety.

And as part of that application, I think we looked at signage.

They they can do that, right?

They can come in at the s you know they want a comp those 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 I mean the question is is there any other unique place and and the boundary question is is a good one.

You notice they asked it, right?

Um, 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 retailers 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?

Um I the question is is there any other neighborhood like downtown in Walnut Creek at I think it's a question of boundaries for me.

It's like yeah, if you go up Mount Diabla and you go up there towards where 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.

Or would it be where it swings around and it's by the deli and then there's the plumbing store, yeah, stuff you know Maruchi's Maruchi's.

There we go.

I believe that's still within the core, but is it within the not the PR district, not the pedestrian region?

Not the pedestrian zone.

But it is it's like then the downtown about North Maine and and the auto row and where the gun store wants to go and all that stuff out there, um that would be similar, in other words, going up Mount Diablo towards the freeways, I s in my head is similar to the North Main stretch, which is a little more tiny little bit more than a little bit of industrial retail as opposed to we want to look at specifics for those, or do we want to do them staff and well it's weird.

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 might turn into residential, so maybe we don't.

And North Maine didn't used to be all auto dealerships.

No, I mean, and up by Ace Hardware, there's gonna be that eight story building.

Yes, that we discuss.

And they're not gonna have any cars.

So they're gonna be walking, right?

So I mean that's it is going to, yeah, it's it's gonna it's gonna change.

That's gonna change if it goes in there.

It's gonna change that.

So I feel like right next to A-Hardware.

So are we better maintaining flexibility if we don't define it?

I would say so.

I think so.

And allowing it to remain going through the up for review.

I think it has to go through the process because they're they're both in flux, both areas are and then Ignatio has its kind of its own sort of image and all of that as just tree.

Okay.

That's great discussion.

Um 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 uh changes we made was from, you know, the initially not allowing A-frames to allowing them with some guardrails.

So we have included a set of standards including uh hours of display, sign area height, sign placement, um, and uh 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.

Um portable signs don't count towards the total number of signs that are already allowed for that zone or property, and then uh 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 uh per business.

So those are the standards we've set, and the question that we've discussed with staff uh 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 sign permit, if they need to apply for a standard sign permit, that's approved at the administrative level, or is do we want to consider requiring a temporary sign permit with an annual renewal for portable signs?

Um so we just want to kind of 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 uh downtown zone and the mixed use uh commercial emphasis zone.

So it's allowed in three zones currently.

Where is the third zone located?

The so the mixed use commercial emphasis.

I would need to defer to city staff about where uh where that zone is within the city.

So it's excluding existing um walkable retail zone, other walkable retail zones and shopping centers.

Yeah, so it wouldn't it and again it would just depend on the zone.

So a sorry to interrupt us.

My understanding we don't regulate A-frame signs currently in our yeah, in our sign ordinance there's no um 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 we you see well in in the shopping centers also.

Everywhere, yeah, when the bakery has a whatever, I mean you see yeah, you see them in all the shopping centers.

So I guess it seems that's that's where I feel like there's a 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 what what we are what's doing the idea um from staff's perspective is to create a set of standards okay that way we don't have a hodgepodge um you know across the board just different types of um unpermitted signage all throughout uh the public right of way and adjacent areas um while simultaneously creating these standards we're providing uh flexibility for businesses to um further market their branding and then on that because it's something that's so pervasive how I mean how is it going to be policed for a lack of a better word it how who like actually what person it 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 and with in it you know written on the sp with the specials are do we are we now saying would they can't do that and I if we are then I'm opposed.

Yeah so and so it would be and city staff could if they if you want a specific person or department that would um 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 um standards that we've established in the 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 um unpermitted development usually um you know what tip quite often code enforcements complaint driven um but there is some sort of um like team effort between planning staff and code enforcement staff um so we do work together on those matters and sometimes planning will serve something before code enforcement and and vice versa and vice versa and apologies I'm not the expert in with the sign ordinance update but from what I understand is there will be a um some sort of permit required with an encroachment permit because anything that's outside of the building will require a permit.

I read 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.

That's correct so because we would be allowed I mean the primary location for these is in the public right of way on the sidewalk and that's technically city property.

So our 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 um where that could be that could be pulled as it stands now we're not recommending a sign permit we're saying if you're in the 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 um uh structure that would be placed in the right of way um 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 that should be something that should be facilitated through public works yeah I I don't foresee any any barriers to why why they couldn't have that specific time frame.

I would say the the details and and working with public works for but that's uh that's specific would have to be something that we would have.

That hasn't been worked out, but the goal is to make sure the signs are located outside of the path of travel.

Right.

Yeah so but what what if and they conform to a standard.

Yeah, and so what if they're not outside the the path of travel?

What if they are a tripping hazard?

What if somebody falls?

But the city as 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 um 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 the removal and the enforcement language as as we we have be because of just of just that instance, you can have because these are movable by nature, someone could easily move it and now it's an impediment.

Um so we have crafted that language so that the city can go out, whether it's complaint driven or whether it's it's viewed by Curtis and can remove that sign if it's not meeting those standards.

Um and really not meeting those standards would be uh uh if it's not placed within the the location requirements, if there are too many signs, um if it's being an impediment to public safety, um that can be yanked right away and and and housed the at the public works facility.

Um the uh the idea of not having it applied to a lot more of the commercial zones was to really focus it on where are people going to be walking, um, because these signs aren't necessarily oriented towards the driver.

You're you're going too fast.

You're gonna you're if with setbacks you're gonna be able to see more of your other business complexes with just which is 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 as much as you would be on their sidewalking and experiencing uh shopping kind of right in front of you.

So that was kind of the impetus where we started in this downtown core.

Um, but as Nikki mentioned, we can't expand that.

It would just be I think we just want to uh be careful about uh an over proliferation 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 uh any kind of corrections triggered by a complaint.

As it would stand now, uh I I I believe that they are either complaint driven or uh the removal of the signs would would be up to city discretion.

Um I understand it now, I I think there is a a blind eye being turned to to some degree allowing these.

This would at least allow some teeth and some enforcement mechanism to the point of would it 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, the MU, both your mixed-use zones and and your and your downtown core.

So on that topic, the shopping centers that we're you know, we've been talking about like out ignatio and tree country wood, those are private property, right?

So does the city have the right to come remove someone's sign on private property?

Uh for these portable signs, these would be specific for uh signs in the in the public right of way.

Okay.

That helps.

I'm just wondering, are we?

Are we adding a lot of bureaucracy to something?

Yeah, struggling and trying to tell people what their special is.

That's kind of yeah, yeah.

That's why you heard me say that so currently there is they're not allowed to it just happens anyway.

So if there's they're allowed them, 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.

Right.

And as we have it proposed now, they would not need to file an application.

You would be allowed by right to have an A-frame sign as long as you met the standards.

Okay, great.

So but then there's permit permit you have to get the encroachment.

Well, not a sign.

It's all gonna be encroachment because it's all sidewalk unless they put it in the planter.

And and I would I would highly recommend not removing the requirement for encroachment permit.

I would say that that is a that is a that is a really strong enforcement mechanism because for the in for the scenario, someone does trip and fall.

Um, yeah, it essentially is kind of signing liability in some way.

You wouldn't agree.

Is there a way that is is it in an in-person application or is it something that you can do online?

I would assume that the that the encroachment permits are online, but I would defer to city staff.

Encroachment permits can be applied for on the city portable.

Great.

Okay.

Um and just for the purposes of the conversation as well, because there's two sides of the coin here.

Um I appreciate all the comments.

Um for planning staff as well, another reason why this section was or is being considered is so we have a set of um uniform guidelines and criteria.

Um currently when you walk up um Maine, you get uh quite a wide variety of sign types that would technically meet the portable A-frame criteria um by definition.

Um but uh there are some unique designs and this would add to or subtract from the the quirkiness and the charm.

Yeah, and that's and that's one of the reasons why we wanted to table this and get feedback from the working group and and the DRC this evening.

Um so that's the intent of this conversation to get direction from it from you all.

Remember when we did the standards, the design guidelines for like multifamily.

We talked about like what we didn't want.

Right, 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 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 we share they share their quirky, and so as long as they're out of the way, we don't care.

That's kind of what I'm hearing.

Yeah, I mean, I think you want to regulate the size.

Yeah, and stability and the not looking like a couple of pieces of white PVC pipe thing.

But doesn't that fall within applicable standards?

Yes.

We're saying what the standard is.

Right, right.

So like I we want the we want the standard to be flexible, right?

And I think we agree with the size, we agree that it it can't it has to be stable, right?

And I I don't know how to say, you know, you I don't know how to say to say something like you put something on there with scotch tape, it has to be neat.

You know, I don't know.

Or like semi-permanent or yeah, I think semi-permanent means you know that could be interpreted later as somebody bolting it down, which isn't what we're asking, right?

I mean it's like it's or it can be limited to prepainted uh or versus hand illustrated, yeah.

And but we want hand illustrated, yeah, but on a uh like a chalk or uh a marker on a surface, not paper tape to in the current draft reads as follows portable signs with a plastic frame are prohibited, metalwood and or similar materials are allowed.

Okay.

That's good.

I like that.

And we have a size.

Yeah, and we do have uh there is a standard, it's a 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 repair and appearance at all times while on display.

So they were junky looking, they could be removed.

You you and the only way these anything 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.

And I think to that point, we also 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.

Um it's also more for when you know a city or a business decides that they're gonna have three A-frame signs that you know, and one of them's six foot tall, that there is an enforcement mechanism where the city can go and you know go there's 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 if we have the enforcement, um the encroachment permit process going through the city isn't quite as liable if the people don't abide by it.

Correct.

Great.

Okay.

We're good?

Yep.

You guys good?

Yep.

Yes.

I think so.

Um so I guess before we wrap everything up, is there any further feedback or direction that we didn't address as part of our discussion that commission would like to provide to us and staff as we go into uh revising the draft?

No.

Thank you for I just had one 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 well after this meeting, we'll go back and incorporate any revisions from your feedback.

Um, and then we will present that revised draft to planning commission for recommendation to city council for adoption.

Um, and then from planning commission and and council if there's any further uh revisions that we need to make before it's codified, we would make those revisions um as a final step.

So uh 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 a long discussion, but um it was great feedback, and we appreciate um taking the time and uh look forward to getting uh this project wrapped up and codified.

Thank you for your work on it.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we've now closed the public hearing and study session.

Do any commissioners have considerations or announcements?

Okay, staff has an announcement.

Yes, so July 15th uh DRC hearing is canceled, so you all get the night off.

Thank you for all your hard work.

And then August fifth will be the next um it's a study session.

Sorry, not a study, so sign subcommittee meeting only, and that would be for Skims um as a business sign exception.

A sign exception.

So August fifth is just a sign thing.

August fifth would be sign exception only, and that's also tentative, so we'll we'll keep closer to just the sign people, right?

Okay, correct.

Yay.

That is all I have.

Thank you.

Okay, we're adjourned.