Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

. . One, two, checking, one, two, three. Check, check, one, two, three. Thank you. Thank you. . so so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you

you

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the September 10th Planning Commission meeting. Will the Secretary please call the roll?

Yes. Commissioner Anderson informed me that he would not be able to attend this evening. Commissioner Moran?

Here.

Commissioner Cowan? Here. Commissioner Strongman?

Here.

Commissioner Quok? Here. Vice Chair Klopp? Here.

Chair Needing? Here. And I believe we just have one item on the consent calendar. Yes, that is correct. And that is the meeting minutes of August 27th, 2026. Does any of the commissioners wish to review that? Or I would take a vote.

Do you need a motion?

Yes, please.

I move to approve the minutes of August 27th. Second.

All right. Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cowan? Yes. Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Vice Chair Klopp? Yes. And Chair Needing? Yes. And the motion passes. Perfect.

And now, before we move on to public communications, actually, sorry. There are 2 opportunities for the public to provide comment the first is right now with items that are not on the agenda but are within the purview of the planning Commission and the second is during the actual agenda item which you see before you as item number 4 so is there anybody that would like to discuss something that is not on the agenda. no okay perfect um have there been um any ex parte communications lots of shaking heads okay perfect and so now we're going to start with item 4a which is um joybound animal daycare building cup design review tree removal sign ordinance exception application. I see that summer's coming for the presentation. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Yeah. Great.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. Simmer Gill, Interim Principal Planner with the City. We are here tonight to consider the Joybound Animal Daycare Building that will be located at 2890 Mitchell Drive. The project requires CEQA, environmental review, as well as a conditional use permit and various other entitlements that are listed on this slide. And with the applicant's team tonight, we have Cheryl McKenna, Scott Corney, and the project design team, we have John Parezo and Michael Vidra and myself to answer any questions you may have after the presentation. And just to quickly orient you with the site, It is zoned business park, and it requires a conditional use permit for expansion of the existing use onsite, which is the existing Joybound Animal Facility. And a design review is required for the construction of the new building. And the site is 8.6 acres, of which 1.56 acres is vacant, and I've identified that area with the red box and the star, and that is where the proposed location for the new building. The surrounding area consists of office, commercial, and residential uses. And I also wanted to point out that recently we've had some approvals and just directly across the street on Mitchell Drive from this project site will be the future Mitchell Town Homes development that was recently approved. And the other one is the Oakmont Senior Housing Facility that was approved that will be adjacent to that proposed location for the daycare. Again, these projects were approved, but we have not received any actual permitting, so it still hasn't gotten to that phase yet. And here are just some existing site photos of the existing facility on site. And again, the proposed building location in relation to the rest of the campus. And the star here identifies, I'll highlight it, identifies where the existing freestanding sign is located. Again, I've just placed that here just to show you in relation to the existing facility where that freestanding sign is located. And tonight, the existing campus as a whole was established as a cultural institution based on Joy Bound's broader nonprofit educational training, animal welfare, and community serving mission. So the proposed animal daycare does expand upon those existing programs and services. associated with the established use on site. And in addition to the new building, there will be outdoor training areas for outdoor exercise yards and a covered trash enclosure. And there will also be new parking stalls to accommodate the new building, tree removals, new landscaping, as well as new building signage. Before I dive into the project details, I wanted to just go over some project history and prior approvals. On March 18th earlier this year, the Design Review Commission reviewed this project as a study session and did provide overall support of the project with some comments related to better building identification and way finding as needed, given the large campus facility and to provide the details on the street face fencing and entrance gates that are proposed as well as exterior lighting fixtures and a noise study was required to address any potential noise impacts. And all of those, the plans have been revised and studies were provided to address DRC comments. And the prior approvals, in 2001 is when the Animal Rescue Foundation, which it was formerly known as the ARFF facility, which was established as a cultural institution use. And then 2018, the Planning Commission and DRC approved a expansion to that existing facility and a two-story building. So tonight, the Planning Commission will consider adopting the negative declaration. and consider approval of the conditional use permit, which would allow expansion of that cultural institution use, and the design review for building architecture, design, and landscape plan, as well as the tree removal permit and the building signage and the sign ordinance exceptions. And here is a look at the entire site. I have highlighted the proposed location for the new building in yellow. And again, just to show in context or in relation to the entire site, access to the site will continue to be taken off Mitchell Drive. And I also wanted to point out THAT THERE IS A SECONDARY ACCESS HERE FROM OAK GROVE ROAD. THIS IS LIMITED TO EMERGENCY AND FIRE ACCESS ONLY BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THE ONLY WAY FOR THE PUBLIC OR CUSTOMERS TO ACCESS THE SITE IS FROM MITCHELL DRIVE. And here's just a closer look at that access from existing driveway and how it will connect around the perimeter of the new building. And there is a new entry gate proposed near the existing driveway. New parking stalls are located right along here, again, along the perimeter of this new building. And there is a ornamental metal fence that will, I believe it's a six or seven foot tall fence along the Mitchell Drive frontage. I do have some rendering details which I will share in the next, as I go through my presentation. And here is a closer look at the floor plan and also showing the access or entrance into this new building. So moving into the building elevations, this is the primary front entrance of this building. This is where access is provided and the primary material does consist of cement, stucco, plaster, The primary color is that cream or off-white. We do have color swatches here in case you want to look closer. Again, this color and material palette and the recess entry with the integrated metal panels and canopies is very similar to the existing buildings on site. So the architecture and the articulation will complement the existing buildings. And here is a photo of the existing facility on site. And this is the south building elevation. This will face the adjacent parcel. Again, the same treatment as the existing building, the recessed windows and the canopies, as well as the materials and colors. And that's carried along to all four elevations. And this is the west elevation. This is facing the internal, the animal yards that are proposed. And this is the east elevation. This is what you will look at if you're driving or walking on Mitchell Drive. It's a street facing elevation. The applicant intentionally made the entrance internal facing into the campus rather than facing Mitchell Drive. And as part of this project, tree removals are also requested. There are a total of 13 trees being removed. Most of these are landscaped type species. I did wanna highlight that none of these are highly protected species per the city's tree preservation ordinance. And three of these trees that are bubbled with red were approved by the city's consulting arborist administratively given their size and the health of these trees. And the 10 remaining, they are bubbled. Sorry, I didn't highlight them, but they're scattered throughout this project site, primarily near the proposed parking areas. These do require Planning Commission approval. Again, none are highly protected, but they are in fair to good health. And as part of this project, four off-site trees are also being preserved, as you can see, bubbled in green along the south elevation, and one on-site tree that's along the north, closer to the entrance of the site. And to offset the loss of the trees, the applicant is proposing 58 new trees, which will range in size from 15-gallon to 24-inch box. And there are a mix of species ranging from maple, crepe myrtles to live oak trees. And five gallon shrubs and ground cover is also proposed as part of the planting plan. And again, it's scattered throughout the site as seen on this exhibit. And I did wanna point out that the acoustic wall with landscaping is installed between The exercise, yes, is located between the exercise yards for the animals. And here is that detail that I mentioned earlier. I highlighted it in blue where the new gates will be installed. And here is the new, the fencing, the four foot tall CMU wall with the three foot high metal fencing that is proposed along the frontage. The green line illustrates where that proposed fencing will be located. And now moving into the proposed signage. The new daycare building will have three new signs as shown here and the locations are shown on the site plan. Two are identical 30.5 square foot halo lit signs reading Joybound. And the third sign is a 16 square foot non-illuminated sign that will be located along the north elevation along this recessed corner of the building. And the fourth sign is located on the existing facility on the site and is shown bubbled in, is number four and bubbled in purple for the location of that proposed signage. And per DRC's direction, the applicant revised their signage plans to incorporate more directional and wayfinding signs given the size of this campus and the different, there's numerous doors and entrances and just trying to make it easier for the customer to find where they need to go. So three and a half square foot, I believe there's nine of them, there's nine three and a half SQUARE FOOT SIGNS, THEY ARE ALL UNDER THE FOUR SQUARE FOOT DIRECTIONAL SIGN ALLOWANCE IN THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE, SO THESE ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS AS THEY'RE MERELY WAYFINDING AND DIRECTIONAL. AND HERE ARE JUST SOME PHOTOS THAT SHOWS THAT THEY WILL BE MOUNTED TO THE EXISTING BEAM OF THE BUILDING. So the other request before you tonight is two sign ordinance exceptions. The first one being the request for the 144 square foot total sign area that's going to exceed the allowed 100 square foot of sign area in the business park zone. And the second request is to retain the existing 29 square foot monument sign where the current sign ordinance allows 24 square feet. And staff does support both of these sign exceptions. Firstly, the freestanding sign, it serves as a primary identification for the building. And as I've shown you earlier, the existing buildings are set back approximately 200 feet away, if not more. So this is their primary identification for MOTORISTS OR PEDESTRIANS PASSING BY TO FIND THEIR FACILITY. AND THEN GIVEN THE EIGHT-ACRE SITE AND THE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON SITE, THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IS WARRANTED. AND I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE 144 PROPOSED TOTAL SIGN AREA IS BELOW THE 200 MAXIMUM. THAT'S TYPICALLY ALLOWED FOR ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL USES IN WALNUT CREEK. Our next item on the agenda will be our proposed sign ordinance update. So I'll just give you a sneak peek. So it is being updated to allow 150 square feet of sign area for business park zone. So this is well within that or below that. So staff does support both sign exceptions, but is requesting planning commission's input. And this is the sign area from dogs.

I take that back because there's also the littles and that's probably another 20. So 64 dogs and averaging 13 cats, but we can expand again. We can double that capacity to 26. And of course, in an emergency situation, a flood, a fire, earthquake, we can put cat kennels around wherever we need to to help support the community in times of crisis.

And I just wanted to touch on something you said that is there a ratio between I'm going on vacation, versus I'm in a domestic abuse situation?

So right now, our plan is that we will always keep at least 20% of our capacity available for the community support components. And then the other 80% could potentially be. But if I don't have a bunch of people demanding my services right now, and I've got 40% of my capacity is being asked for from the community. And unfortunately, we're seeing more and more need these days. Then absolutely that ratio could be but our plan is always never to let that ratio fall between below 80 20 80 to support the programs basically and generate the revenue 20 to provide the program the programmatic support Yeah, that's a healthy number. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you Any other comments From from what I it's interesting when I was I reading about the DRC calling this a campus and wanting to have some consistency, the one thing that should be stated also because it used to just be a flat field out there is the fact that I do see that you're providing sustainability with water treatment, because I saw CSW's report. With all the drainage management areas for all around, so you also have a sustainability component leading to that in addition to all the various studies. Okay. If there's no other questions for the applicant, then I will go ahead and, oh, they talked for what, 30 seconds? Are there any other, so I believe I got both of you. Are there any other public speakers that would like to speak? No, excuse me. Okay, well normally I would give you an additional five minutes to rebut what anybody is saying. but you were good there. So I am going to now close the hearing portion and bring it back to my fellow commissioners for discussions, questions.

I'm very impressed with the report, the staff work on this, very impressed with the architecture and the plans. Excited about the opportunities this will present, not only for people who live in Walnut Creek, but for a whole disaster response regional community. a regional response that is needed, that people are looking for and that we're gonna need more and more over time. So I would like to make a motion if we are ready.

I'm ready.

So I would move to adopt the draft resolutions, attachments one and two, adopting the negative declaration and approving the following entitlements, conditional use permit, design review, tree removal permit, and sign ordinance exception. Second.

And I will conduct the roll call. Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cowan? Yes. Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Vice Chair Klott?

Yes. Chairperson Needing?

Yes. The motion passes.

Thank you for coming, or coming back, because we've seen you before. Now on to what quite a few of us have been discussing this for a long time, and one of our fellow commissioners took it to the finish line. So it is item 4B, sign ordinance update. And I believe, Simra, you're doing both.

Actually, I have help today. So I'll just start with the introduction. So good evening again, chair and members of the commission. Simra Gill with the city. NEXT UP, WE ARE PRESENTING THE PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE. AS YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DATES BACK TO 1992 AND WHILE IT'S BEEN AMENDED OVER THE YEARS, THERE HASN'T BEEN AN ACTUAL COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE IN MORE THAN 30 YEARS. it's definitely time to bring the ordinance up to date, and the update will essentially modernize the regulations, make them more clear, and provide greater flexibility for property owners as well as businesses that are looking for sign opportunities for identification for their businesses. And with that, I will turn it over to Michael Gibbons and Nikki Sanchetta, our sign consultants with Mintier Harnish. They've worked closely with staff on the update and they will walk through the process and the key proposed changes. So with that, come on up. Thank you.

Well, good evening, Chair and Commissioners. It's an absolute pleasure to be here tonight to not only bring you up to speed on what we've been working on diligently over the last few years, but also present to you through this public hearing the draft of that. As you recall, we met with the Commission early on in this process, received some objectives that you would like to see, ended up forming a steering committee as part of those conversations. So it's very exciting for us to be here to finally provide you that product for your consideration and recommendation tonight to city council. Brief reintroductions. My name is Michael Gibbons. I am a senior project manager for Mintier Harnish and the overall project manager for the consultant team for this project. We are with Mintier Harnish. Again, we are a land use consulting firm based out of Sacramento. We specialize in zoning codes and general plans, specific plans, and our focus is really working in the public sector. We don't do any private sector work. We work with cities and counties to do just this, take in public feedback, engage with decision makers, and ultimately craft and provide products that are going to be not only representative of your residents, but also going to be implementation tools for you as decision makers. So tonight here's our meeting outline. We're gonna provide you an overview of the project. It's been quite some time since we've seen you. We're gonna talk about goals and objectives, and then we're gonna spend quite a bit of time describing to you what has changed and the reasoning behind that. A lot of what will be presented tonight has come out of public comment, engagement with our steering committee, and what we try and will do tonight is make those connections so you have an understanding of why decisions were made and why certain amendments are being proposed. Our overall purpose of tonight is to present the signed ordinance to you, solicit feedback from the Planning Commission on items that you would like to potentially see change, and ultimately what we are seeking through this public hearing is a recommendation that we could forward to City Council for the actual zoning amendment itself. With me tonight is Nikki Zanchetta. She has been the project planner and is an associate at our firm. has been integral in the development of this project. And she will present the remainder of this presentation. And we will both be available for questions at the end of the presentation. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Michael. As Michael said, my name is Nikki Zanchetta. I am an associate planner at Mintier Harnish, and I've been working alongside Michael and city staff through this process to get the sign ordinance to where it is today. So just to start off, I know Michael gave a little bit of an overview of the project and what we've been up to and what our timeline has been, but just to give a little bit of background to this project. So the overall purpose is, of course, to redo the entire sign ordinance to incorporate bring it into a more modern format and to address any issues that the city has seen over the years and incorporate those what the city would like to see in regards to signs and to update for clarity and consistency with other projects in the city So the sign ordinance was originally adopted in 1992. There's been some minor updates since then, but this is kind of the first time we're going through and really comprehensively looking at the sign ordinance in terms of how it's formatted and really trying to dig into the different types of standards and regulations that we want to kind of bring into a more contemporary format. The overall goals of this project are to just really clarify the intent of signage in the city and the role of the city when it comes to signs and how we want to make sure that we're meeting business needs while still maintaining the community character and public safety within the city. So again, we just really want to, what our intentions are with a lot of these updates and the overall update to the sign ordinance is to balance the flexibility within the sign standards for business, to meet business needs, recognizing that signs are really important to businesses for advertising, just their presence in the community as well as different marketing and really gathering business to their shop fronts. But also recognizing that with that the city is responsible for reducing visual clutter and really maintaining community character. So these standards are really meant to strike that balance. So for our project approach, we've had, as Michael said, a lot of interaction with the Design Review Commission. We formed a working group as the primary advising body for this initial drafting process, which was a member of Planning Commission as well as a member from the Design Review Commission and we also solicited feedback from the business community in the form of an online questionnaire and then we also were publicizing this project through a dedicated web page on the city's website. We've also had several internal working sessions with staff to work through feedback that we received from public comment as well as from design review commission and working groups. So just a little bit of a project timeline. So this project was initially initiated in 2019, and there are stakeholder interviews with working group meetings, and we have an initial fix it list, but with the COVID-19 pandemic, the city's priorities shifted. And then come 2024, we re-kicked off this project and we, kind of took a little bit more of a different approach where it was a lot more of business oriented outreach and kind of restarted the process of what the priorities were for the city. in updating the sign ordinance. In 2025, we had our first study session, which was a joint study session with Design Review Commission and Planning Commission, and that's where we established our working group and kind of identified some initial priorities and issues that we wanted to see addressed as part of the sign ordinance update. And then in June 2025 is when we started outreach with the business community. We had an online questionnaire that really targeted business owners and property owners that operate in Walnut Creek. And then we just, through that process, summarized some key themes that we're hearing from the business community of what they want to see in the sign ordinance, what's a priority to them. And we also had a working group meeting at this point as well. And then in fall 2025 is when we started drafting and doing some additional research to start having an initial draft of the sign ordinance and the initial formatting that we were going to reorganize the sign ordinance into. And then in September 2025, we had a second working group meeting. And this was just mainly to discuss the initial draft, get feedback, and incorporate revisions that working group had based on our initial draft from our OUTREACH THAT WE CONDUCTED. AND THEN THROUGH APRIL 2026, WE WENT THROUGH SOME ADDITIONAL INTERNAL MEETINGS WITH CINDY'S STAFF TO REVISE THE DRAFT AND GET IT TO A POINT WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE, WE WERE GOING TO TAKE IT TO DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. AND IN THAT TIME, WE MET WITH THE WORKING GROUP FOR A THIRD MEETING AS WELL. and this past july we took the sign ordinance to the design review commission for review and we got feedback from them incorporated that feedback which led us to the draft that we have today and are presenting to you this evening and then after this evening the next steps is to with your recommendation and any modifications to the sign ordinance would be to refine that the draft and then take it to city council for adoption this fall To go over some of our outreach results and key themes that we heard from the business community as well as working group and the Design Review Commission, we had our questionnaire, again, this went to business owners and property owners in the city, and we received a total of 23 responses from a variety of businesses and property owners. And some of the key themes that we really heard from the community is just wanting more flexibility within the sign ordinance and having it be just a clearer ordinance for them to be able to navigate through and to go through the sign permit process. Just in these four kind of key themes, one was visibility and location. That was kind of top of mind for business owners if people can't see a sign or can't read a sign, it doesn't do much good to them. So visibility and location and the number of signs available to them was really important. A-frame signs are a really big deal. That was something we heard repeatedly, that A-frames are important for advertising the business, especially to foot traffic and to also market for specials or daily menus and things like that. Size and design flexibility was also really important. Notably, the business owners mentioned having flexibility for logos and branding and for the science standards to have the flexibility for them to incorporate and use their branding and logos. And then just overall process improvements of just having the sign ordinance feel like it was, it's easy to navigate and that it was clear what the process was to go through the sign permitting process and what was available to them in terms of review with the city. With the working group study sessions, we, again, this consisted of a member from Planning Commission and DRC, and our main feedback that we received during these working group sessions was to really hearing that business owners wanted A-frame signs and developing clear standards for those so that while allowing that flexibility, the city can still have some DISCRETION OVER WHAT THOSE SIGNS LOOK LIKE AND WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED IN FRONT OF BUSINESSES AND THEN ESTABLISHING STANDARDS THAT REALLY PROMOTE AND EXPAND THE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW MANY SIGNS AND THE size of signs that are available to business owners and then also modifying the master sign programs that was another thing we heard from business owners and property owners is that a lot of times master sign programs are really outdated and wanting some opportunity and incentive for those to get updated or for individual business owners to find ways to not to necessarily get around what's in the master sign program, but more to with outdated master sign programs to be able to have an opportunity to deviate from that master sign program if it is outdated. And then with the Design Review Commission, with a study session we had this past July, overall there was an overall support for the sign ordinance as drafted with some of these recommendations including providing a list of conditions that would qualify for a minor deviation, which I'll go over in a couple slides, which is a minor deviation is a new process that we're introducing as part of this sign ordinance, and then bolstering the sign illumination requirements just to make sure we're minimizing impacts of light pollution and creating a clear and streamlined approval for portable signs which are we're referring to as a frames and to so that business owners don't necessarily need to receive a sign permit for that or an encroachment permit and Then we've also just received feedback for more graphics and figures to illustrate the standards. I So just to go over the kind of main changes that we made as part of this update, just overall we've reformatted and restructured the way that the sign ordinance is formatted, and this includes some of the biggest changes Things that we included were tables, and these tables show by zone exactly which signs are allowed and the type of permit or review approval that is needed for those signs, whether it's an exempt sign, a temporary sign permit, all the way to DRC approval. We've also included several more graphics or updated graphics. And we've also made sure to reorganize the sign ordinance in a way that is clear and user-friendly. And we also wanted to update all of the language to make sure that it's consistent throughout the document and is consistent with best practices, referring to signs that we've seen in other jurisdictions. And we've also, for the sign area calculation and measurement, Oops, sorry. For the sign area allowance per zone, this was something that was mentioned in the previous item this evening. So we are, the current sign regulations allow for one square foot of sign area per one linear foot of building frontage. And then in addition to that, there's one square foot per 200 square feet of gross floor area of the business up to 200 square feet. That's for all signs on the building. So if they have four signs, it all has to fit within that 200 square feet. The proposed changes is that we're increasing the sign area per linear foot of building frontage. We're increasing it based on zone. This is kind of recognizing that different zones in different areas of the city and different businesses have different sign requirements based on where they're located so it it's based on from 1.5 square foot per linear foot to two square or two square feet per linear foot of building frontage so we increased that city wide and that's up to 150 to 200 square feet of total sign area And this is just a map, the zoning map, and kind of showing within those black boxes where this is mostly in commercial areas where we're seeing these changes having an impact. So just to have an idea of where these changes will be applied. Another thing that we are changing as part of this update is the sign area calculation and measurement. This is really more of to provide a really clear and transparent way of how we're measuring what's included in the overall sign area. So existing sign regulations calculates the sign area based on a regular geometric form around the perimeter of all sign elements. We've just simplified that to whatever the smallest rectangle that would encompass all the sign elements. And you can see kind of an image here of what that looks like. It's just height times width equals how big that sign area is, even though there might be some dead space in between that. In between sign elements, it's included in the sign area. This is really just more for simplicity and transparency for people looking at the sign ordinance as well as for staff. These are a few other examples of the yellow boxes, what we would consider to be the sign area when calculating how big a sign is. We've also made modifications to the different level of a review authority that's needed for different types of signs. We've really expanded the amount of signs that can be approved by the community development director and this is really based on signs that were routinely approved by DRC and DRC felt like Those can just be approved by the Community Development Director based on how the sign ordinance has been interpreted before. However, we're still retaining some larger oversight for bigger signs that might have larger impacts, such as specially master sign programs, of course, as well as freeway-oriented signs and skyline signs. As I mentioned earlier, one of the changes that we made is adding a new process, which is a minor deviation, and this essentially allows for applicants to apply for a minor deviation from the set sign standards that are outlined in the sign ordinance. It limits what they can request, so it's either one or, Two of these listed here, which is 20% of a maximum dimensional standard so that could include height width or the total sign area or up to one additional sign provided that that sign is allowed in that zone or for that business type and This really allows for flexibility for site-specific conditions. The applicant would have to present why they need to deviate from the science standards and why the existing science standards wouldn't fit for what they need for their business. but it allows some flexibility in the sign standards without an applicant necessarily having to go all the way to DRC and have that extra level of review and time spent on a sign application. For master sign programs, we've made some modifications. We've clarified the process and the information that needs to be included as part of a master sign program application. We've also created some incentives and requirements for outdated sign programs. I believe we've established that having it be within 10, that a master sign program would need to be updated within 10 years. it first being approved just to revisit it to see if there's modifications that can be made to meet businesses needs and it also provides a some flexibility for limited deviations from outdated master sign programs where essentially an individual business that wants to have a sign that doesn't necessarily follow the master sign program standards, they can apply for a sign permit under the sign standards established just in the the regular ordinance, even if that deviates from the master sign program. That's really to just, it's to provide flexibility for those business owners if there's a 20-year-old master sign program and the sign ordinance aligns more with what they need for their business, it's more modern and takes into consideration what they need, they can use that instead. We've also added some new standards or clarified standards that weren't explicitly addressed in the existing sign ordinance. So we've added some requirements for specific land uses such as hospitals or community facilities. Some land uses just have different needs than a standard business would for signage. And then we've also established standards for sign types that were previously not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED SUCH AS A FRAMES OR PAINTED WALL SIGNS OR CABINET SIGNS AS WELL, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES. Another update we've made is the number of signs allowed per business and the existing sign regulations don't regulate the number of signs allowed except for specific sign types such as freestanding signs but the proposed ordinance we've established a maximum number of signs based on the sign type so maximum number of wall signs maximum number of projecting signs such as like those shingle signs and we've also established a maximum total number of signs per business which is four signs for a standalone business and three signs for a business that's part of a multi-tenant building and that's mainly just to maintain the WE DID THAT TO MAINTAIN OR MINIMIZE THE VISUAL IMPACTS OR VISUAL CLUTTER OF TOO MANY SIGNS ON A BUILDING. THERE'S AN EXAMPLE HERE OF THIS BUILDING AS PART OF A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING AND WOULD UNDER THE NEW SIGN ORDINANCE WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED, BOTH FOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS, BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR SIGNS TOTAL INSTEAD OF THREE, AS WELL AS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ONLY ONE WALL SIGN PER BUSINESS. THIS IS TWO WALL SIGNS. And we're also proposing only one projecting sign per street frontage, and this one has two projecting signs on the same street frontage. So just an example of how this could impact of what we're considering of too many signs on one frontage. Painted signs were previously prohibited in the existing sign ordinance. We're proposing to allow them. This is a type of sign that's becoming more and more common. We have established standards for how big they can be, where it can be located on the building, and how they have to be designed, mainly that they need to be applied by a professional painter and designed so someone can't just go up on their own and paint a sign on their wall, that there's certain review process that has to go into it. And we've also, because there's sometimes a little bit of a gray area between when is a sign a sign and when is it a mural, so we've created some clarification in the definition between what's considered a painted sign, what's considered a mural, and what the difference is in terms of who's responsible for reviewing those. We've also included standards for projected light signs. Again, this is something that we're seeing as a more modern technology for signs, usually in more downtown areas where there's a lot of foot traffic. You may have seen some of these where there's a projection going onto the sidewalk. It has the business's name or logo. And we've created some standards for where these are allowed, really restricting them to only being in the downtown pedestrian retail area, which is where they would be most utilized. And we've also created standards for where it can be projected, what the projection equipment needs to, how it needs to be installed to make sure that we're not creating an issue of glare or light being projected onto other businesses or onto vehicles. For cabinet signs, traditionally these are just considered wall signs, but there are a lot of different types of cabinet signs, and this was one discussion that we had with the working group where there was a desire to kind of restrict how, where the more, the old-fashioned kind of cabinet signs that you see on the bottom, kind of those old school cabinet signs and wanting to really reduce where those are used in the city, but also those three examples that are on the top, which a lot of the working group felt like those were acceptable signs, but technically still considered cabinet signs and didn't want to prohibit that, so we just added some standards and it's really regarding the lighting and how cabinet signs are internally lit. And then a big one was portable signs. Currently they are not allowed in the city even though they still are commonly used. We have just created standards that have very clear expectations for what these A-frame signs need to look like. where they can be located, and different display requirements for them. So there's one portable sign allowed per business. We've established a new portable sign standards acknowledgement form, which is they don't need to apply for a sign permit, but they essentially need to submit a form to staff that says we've met all of the requirements that are stated in the sign ordinance, our A-frame meets these standards, And that's essentially giving the city permission to say if there's any signs out of compliance, gives permission to go, you're out of compliance and need to remove your A-frame sign from your business. We've also established clear display hours that they need to be removed and stored inside at the close of business. And we've also established removal requirements where the city is allowed to remove any A-frame sign from a property when it is out of compliance with the standards. And that can be done immediately without notice. And that is included in our maintenance and removal standards in the sign ordinance. And then we have a couple topics that we would like to have further discussion on and get input from the commission. But I did want to first ask if we want to take general questions and when we would like to do public comment as well.

I'd like to just finish this presentation so we have everything. I promise you, we'll remember.

Okay, perfect. Okay, so the first topic that we would like to kind of discuss further is that, as I mentioned, we have established a sign area allowance by zoning district, and the question is really should maximum sign area allowance be regulated by zoning district as we're proposing in the updated ordinance, or should there be more uniform city-wide approach? The potential benefit of sign area allowance by zoning district, as I mentioned, is that it acknowledges that different areas of the city and different businesses and different areas have different needs, different development patterns, proximity to major roadways. So having a larger sign allowance may be more appropriate in some areas and having a smaller sign allowance in another might make more sense. The potential concern is that it creates an additional level of regulation in addition to the other standards that we're requiring as part of the ordinance and that this can make the sign ordinance maybe a little bit more difficult to navigate both for business and property owners as well as city staff looking over sign permits. And this is just the earlier slide that is showing the sign area allowance per zone. The second topic that we would like further input on is the overall number of signs that we are allowing. So the existing ordinance doesn't have regulations on the total number of signs. that are allowed and the question is really if this having this added layer of a maximum sign area allowance and in addition to having the maximum or having a maximum number of signs allowed per business is necessary or appropriate. Again, a potential benefit is that it goes beyond just sign size and the total sign area to minimize the kind of visual impact or potential visual clutter of the number of signs associated with any given business or on any street frontage. Again, the potential concern is that this is another added layer of regulation that could potentially cause confusion to applicants or city staff as well as limiting some options for businesses. And this is the example from the earlier slide where this is a business that would essentially be exceeding the number of signs allowed under the new ordinance. then just to go over some next steps in this process so we will go through and hopefully have a planning commission action tonight to adopt the draft resolution for recommending city council approve the sign ordinance update with any modifications that you may have and then once we have get feedback and emotion tonight then we will revise the sign ordinance based on your recommendations and then we'll be presenting the sign ordinance to city council, and then once we present to city council, we'll incorporate any recommendations they may have and produce a final document.

That's it. Okay, what I'd like to do here is I'm sure we're gonna have a ton of questions for, thank you for the presentation, by the way. That was extremely thorough. I know there was two items that you wanted very specific feedback on, but what I'd like to do is quickly open it up so we can hear the public first. You don't have, Okay. Well, I just I have to ask anyways. So if I'm seeing I have no speaker identification cards on this item. And there's nobody here that wants to talk. So Claire, is it okay if I now just bring it back to?

Okay, perfect. Okay. I wanted to get a second to rest.

Can you come back up? Of course, of course. Okay, would you mind going to the topic number one, please? Yes. What I'd like to do is be able to, I see this as a homework item, so what I'd like to do is be able to discuss each topic first, and then if there's any other topics based on the various, documentation that we have from the agenda report, then we can go over it there then, is that okay? Commissioner Strongman's confused.

So just to clarify, this is the part of the hearing where we are asking questions of the consultant.

Yes, and giving feedback. What I'd like to do is give feedbacks very specific to each topic first, and then we can open it up still to the consultant to any other general topic.

Do we close the hearing and give feedback afterwards, or are we giving feedback during the hearing?

So typically how it works is you ask the questions, and then during the hearings, but since there's nobody here, I would suggest you keep the hearing open, ask the questions, close it, and then you can bring it back for feedback. Then we can discuss. Then we can discuss, right.

So now let's ask the questions on topic number one while I have it open, which is sign area allowance by zoning district. So before we bring that for discussion, are there any questions that folks would like to ask for our discussion later?

Yeah, I am confused. Shoot. Sorry, I'm confused. Yes, I make a mess.

I think, Claire, the idea is that we ask questions now while the public hearing is open, correct?

Yes, if you have just first fundamental questions or basic questions, you should ask them now and then you can close public hearing and then bring it back for the discussions and feedback.

I will ask a general question on have you presented this thing to the business community and what is their feeling of it?

So we have posted this to the website, I believe. And we've also, I believe, city staff met with the business community. We weren't present for that, so I'll defer to staff.

Yeah, staff did meet with Walnut Creek downtown. We've also been coordinating with our economic development team, who has multiple connections into our community. So for example, I know We've had some discussions with the Shadelands Business Improvement District as well, so I can't say we've met with every single business owner, but we've definitely had feedback loops with the community.

And their feedback was?

A little bit ranging, generally positive, generally in approval. For example, the Walnut Creek downtown, they had some extra questions regarding the A-frame proposals within the ordinance. They also wanted clarity on understanding if, I call them descriptor lines. I'm not sure if that's the terminology you use, Nikki. But so if it's, I think the example was Dragon's Arch and then underneath it was, Restaurant cuisine or something along those lines so that bottom line being this descriptor Businesses in the downtown wanted to make sure that that would be permissible And then the last thing that we did spend some time on was the regulation of neon signs Okay, thank you.

I think perhaps your question or at least my question is For the for the two questions were being asked tonight topic one and topic two Was that exact question asked of the business community? And if so, what did you hear?

For these two specific questions, they weren't asked to the business community directly as they're being asked here. We did ask about, as part of our business outreach, did ask about the number of signs. We did not ask about the sign area allowance by zoning district. That is something that IS COMMON IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO HAVE KIND OF OVERALL SIGN ALLOWANCE BY ZONING DISTRICT VARYING FROM THE INTENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL USE.

I'LL ADD A LITTLE TO THAT AND MICHAEL OR NIKKI PLEASE CHIME IN BECAUSE I KNOW I'M STILL A LITTLE BIT NEW HERE. BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN A LOT OF THE EARLY INTEL THAT WE DID COORDINATING WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS THAT OUR CODE WAS A LITTLE CHALLENGING TO READ. you know super navigation friendly and so as you can see on the screen here the potential benefit versus the potential concern that's sort of why we're reaching out towards the commission about this question is if we were to do it by zoning district or if we were to limit the number of signs are those are we adding regulation layers that are too challenging to navigate when we know our the one of our main purposes of this update is to make it more streamlined and make it easier and more understandable. So do you feel that these additional layers are difficult to understand? Are they difficult to utilize?

So I guess a follow up question would be in the other cities and areas that are that are using the zone. I noticed that we have what seems to me to be a clear zone table where you just look at your zone. Has that, in your experience with these other cities, have there been confusion or challenges around the zone use?

I would I don't believe so and Michael might be able to talk more about different sign ordinances that we've written and if there's been feedback from from city or county staff after it's been adopted if there's further confusion usually once it's in a tab using the tabular format is a way that makes it clear of you can find your zone and then as long as it's clearly described as to all the standards that you need to follow, but I will also defer to Michael as well.

Absolutely. Wonderful question. So it is a typical best practice that we see in communities, and it very much relates also to how applicants are going to look at allowable land uses. You go to your table, you find your land use, and then you look at what the appropriate entitlement is for that. That is an additional layer that we've brought in because we thought that would provide better clarity. Also, making that a tabular format as opposed to paragraph format is much more user-friendly as well and something that a lot of the sign applicants that we work with and a lot of the jurisdictions that we work with is something that they've expressed to us has been a lot of a benefit. I think when you pair kind of that regulation along with our additional allowances, I think it ends up being a much better product. So yeah, generally speaking, that is the general approach, best practice approach for communities to regulate signs, something that we incorporated here.

Any other questions?

Well, I just would add the tables seem very straightforward if I know my zoning. So as a business owner, I mean, that could be a risk. I mean, might not. They might know their hairdressing products better than their zoning. The second topic where you're talking about numbers of signs and in addition to total sign area, that seems like adding another question on a simple question, like if it's total sign area, I can do it with two or one or whatever. It's the number that is allowed. That seems more complicated to me, just off the top of my head, but I don't know if anybody else agrees.

I think on that I would just add a follow up. Is there an example where there's a need for an overall number of signs? Because in the example that was given, the number four or number three total number of signs wouldn't be an issue because you already couldn't have two of this kind and two of this kind. So the total number would have been irrelevant. So is there a use case for the total?

I don't have a use case off the top of my header available for tonight, but that is for this one. You're correct in that if there was, since there's already a... That layer of you can only have one wall sign or one projecting sign then in a new it would eliminate that need for That that total maximum number of signs and the total maximum number of signs is per business so that also kind of applies to I think the the biggest use case would be a business that's on like a corner property where It would be a total maximum number of signs for the entire business would be, if it's a standalone business, four, so they can have four signs on each building frontage. It's a maximum number of signs of four per business.

So while we're on the topic of number of signs, by the way, it was a pleasure to work with you, Nikki and Michael. I really appreciate it. seeing how the process came to fruition from the beginning with the survey of the business community, the feedback that we had in the working group, as well as all the other input from city staff. One of the things that I think we had discussed at some point during the working group was, what do we do with signs that become nonconforming when the sign ordinance is updated? And so can we elaborate a little bit more on the amortization of the nonconforming signs, as well as how would that interplay How would that interface with the minor deviation process that allows for one additional sign or the 20% increase in the total sign area?

Great question. Yes, so for the non-conforming sign, and I might ask Michael to bring up that section for the non-conforming signs, but I believe we have it so that for non-conforming signs, it's not going to be that if It's a the business is not conforming with the updated sign ordinance are not going to be asked to remove signs Until there unless there is a the sign needs to be removed just based off of maintenance But this is my good. They have that pulled up And the non-conforming signs is located, that section is on page 47 and 48.

Not to interrupt, but I believe it's treated very similarly to non-conforming structures, right? They're allowed to exist until some future date when they're modified or looking to expand or change, et cetera.

Question regarding if we decide to have different standards for different zones, who makes the determination of which zone gets what sign standards?

yeah so we have grouped the zones for the for commercial office and mixed-use districts we've grouped these kind of based on the intensity of uses just looking at the types of land uses and intensity that is allowed in those zones so for the kind of That lower that 1.5 square square foot per linear foot is for. Kind of more general commercial mixed use areas. And then we have a little bit of a higher allowance in the pedestrian retail. That's mainly just because. Those tend to be smaller storefront businesses and kind of having a larger amount per linear square footage kind of leads to a space for a sign allowance that businesses can work with and then that larger kind of 200 square feet of sign area allowances for larger commercial uses. So we've really tried to group it based on the intensity of uses that are and how those zones are being used currently.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions on topics or general topics? Can I add one more thing to the non-conforming signs? Sorry, I wasn't reading the details close enough. So yes, they get to exist unless they alter or change or expand, etc. But as I read further on, it does say that non-conforming signs shall conform to the provisions of this chapter within 15 years of the date in which the sign is deemed non-conforming. So we do have a little bit of a timetable there. for amortization.

One more question. Minor detail, we have several painted signs on buildings that are more historical than they are advertising the actual business that's there right now. What happens to those?

Those would be able to retain in perpetuity. The idea is not to make this more restrictive process as much as it is to kind of allow those expressions. By no means is there an interest in having those be removed as part of this process. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions before I close the public hearing for discussion?

Maybe I have one more follow-up. Yes. The second part to your question, Commissioner, was how does this then mesh with the minor deviation process? And so this could potentially be an opportunity where there is a business right now that may be non-conforming This process, through the minor deviation process, could allow that if they were to submit an application. So it is an opportunity for what right now might be considered non-conforming to bring a business into conformance, which I think collectively would be a good effort.

Perfect. Thank you. What I'd like to do is I'm just looking at the staff report for which clearly outlines the two topics and the first one which is page 12 talks about the sign area allowances by zoning district, which To me this makes sense, especially since we there's there's three different buckets if you will for zoning districts and It's very similar to where, to how our objective residential and commercial objective standards are written, which this city spent an incredible amount of time creating those. I hear you, Vice Chair Cobb, about not knowing what zoning district you are in, but the city has a ever-growing upgrading GIS platform that you can Google and you can go on and it's like a parcel finder and you can find, I'm like always just amazed at how many more layers of GIS information is on there. So what I'd like to do is, um, is bring this topic which you can see again on page 12 and it has that table format for the three different types commercial office and mixed use districts awesome um whether whether we feel right staff is seeking commission direction on whether we feel that it's appropriate to differentiate by zoning just like any land use would be have it an objective standard or not.

Are you taking a straw vote then?

Part of our homework is to provide direction. I'm just following the staff report.

So one of the use cases that came up to me when I was looking at how we should do the whether to do uniform signs or whether to do it by zoning, is that sometimes, often when we're looking at new construction or renovations to businesses, in the course of the application, they'll find out what their zoning is. And so I think by the time they get to what do we want to do with the signs and the design of that, to your question earlier about the What zone am I in? Often the applicant will know, okay, I know that for the duration of this project and the work with city staff that I'm in a certain commercial zone. And so I just need to read down the table and find out what kind of sign I want. I can use the visuals in the signed ordinance to identify, am I looking at the right sign? And then I can identify what is the allowable sign. there so i think the way it works the benefit of the table is that it meshes very well with the overall application process and that's where i think it's very responsive to the users of the sign ordinance any other comments before i give my comment um i i completely agree and and for we've seen

more swift process even with agenda items coming here where there it's it's a beautiful thing to be able to see that objective standard list and you just go check check check check check check everybody knows exactly so I think we have a unanimous yes on the direction on whether we wish to provide differentiation of sign area allowances okay so that was homework item number one for us Homework item number two is overall number of signs, which is the establishment of a maximum of four permanent signs for a standing loan, three for a business with multi-tenant. And so that is what we need to provide feedback on, on whether these numerical limits are appropriate.

So if I can open the discussion again, I think the way that I envision, especially with the nonconforming signs, what do we do with existing businesses that when the sign ordinance is updated, we'll have to move into compliance with the sign ordinance? And this was a question that came up in the working group. And so I think the 15 years to amortize nonconforming signs gives businesses enough time to determine, okay, you know, as as we move into the future, as we come up with more innovative ways to advertise businesses. Because, you know, we have new projected signs, projected light signs, and we have new other sign types that the existing code didn't consider previously. And so there's some degree of flexibility built into the proposed sign ordinance with the what do we do with the non-conforming signs. Together, if we take the amortization of the non-conforming signs together with the minor deviation process, I think that allows businesses to say, hey, if my business becomes non-conforming with the new sign ordinance, but I believe that I would benefit from a minor deviation, then that is one of the avenues that businesses have available to them to maintain their existing sign ordinance. They're signs.

For the record, I closed the public hearing portion. I thought I said it, but I'm tired. So just for the record, thank you so much, Commissioner Quok for that. Vice Chair Klopp, you guys sit next to each other.

So I will just repeat my comment that I feel like adding an overall number of signs condition to the already existing maximum sign area allowances just makes it more complicated. We should just stick with one definition, maximum sign area allowance. But that's my opinion.

I disagree. I think that, I mean in the Williams-Sonoma example, well that's a bad example, but I think that asking businesses to count to three or count to four is easy enough. And I think it's a matter of the messaging in addition to the actual ordinance because as the previous topic number one we saw, a lot of the problems can be solved table right and I'm not saying that topic number two applies exactly like that but what I am saying is that I think I also think there should be a limit on the number of science just there we can't have a world where there's just simply because there are ends of rounds of what businesses could do and then we've got 12 science so I take the opinion that I think for for standalone building three for like remember where strip mall I think you know is kind of the you're not you're shaking your head at me uh is makes sense so I'm in favor of at least capping and putting a number on it even if it there's an additional layer of regulation but I think that can be circumvented just with clearer guidance

And chiming in after that a little bit is if a business decides that they feel they need five signs, they could come and apply for a variance and go through the entire process. And we could deny it or approve it.

That's the deviation, right?

No, I wouldn't necessarily, well, possibly the deviation, but it could be a full-blown hearing.

Where they have to come back here?

Yes.

If it, yeah, the findings would have to be made for a variance that's a state, of course, a state process. There's very specific findings. I guess theoretically someone could apply for a variance for additional signs. We feel that we've built in that extra step so maybe they wouldn't actually have to go through that process, which is called a minor deviation, which, yeah, I think it allows a 20% flexibility on any dimensional standard and then up to one additional sign. So if they exhausted that route, then I think what the other tool actually that might be at their disposal might be a master sign program. That would give them the most flexibility, but that is discretionary. So they're kind of opening themselves up to put some potential standards and conditions.

And if I could just add, I believe that minor deviation section also allows city staff to evaluate and see is this something we can allow through that 20% minor deviation or is this something we don't want to support? And then we escalate it to design review commission for consideration.

So can I ask Commissioner Kwok, was the purpose of this having an overall number of signs limit to share the intent of the city that we do want to reduce visual, we want to minimize visual clutter. So this is what the ideal is. And then if someone wants to deviate, then they would need to go through that process.

Yes. So one of the points that we had raised was how do we strike a balance between allowing sufficient advertisements of businesses but also maintaining the character of Walnut Creek where when we're moving through the streets of Walnut Creek, our eyes are drawn to the main landmarks of Walnut Creek. So for example, Mount Diablo, significant buildings that we like, other places that we may be trying to find that are not necessarily the business that we're walking by with that could have a lot of extra signs. So the balance of visual clutter The balance of sufficient advertising and the avoidance of visual clutter, this is what this line is designed to address.

Okay, thank you. Given that, I am comfortable having the overall number of signs limit.

My question for staff is, I know there's a maximum. Is there a minimum? So someone could be absurd and do conjecture. I see both points. I see your point about why if you know, because it's interesting because in a land use designation, you have typically a range of density. And so for some reason, I thought in the sign area, oh, you don't need to have the number of signs because you have a min and a max. It's just the max. Any other... Thoughts on having a max four or five?

I can be swayed by my colleague.

Okay, then I think you have, staff, your answer on, that was our homework item, give our thoughts on topic one and topic two. Is there anything else that we need to do to properly send this off to city council?

Just any other items that you might want to discuss that weren't specifically asked of you, if there's anything that you would like revised or honed in or happy to take that motion.

I will, you know, I'll say one thing when I was reading this, like having sat on the planning commission for a few years now. There was a bit of nostalgia when I was reading. I was like, ah, I remember that. There was the car shop or this. There were so many different things. And I was like, I could tell that this was written in such a way that it was from previous experience. So I will entertain a motion if anybody would like to make one.

all right i'm very pleased to make the motion that we adopt the resolution recommending city council adoption of an ordinance amending title 10 chapter 8 sign regulations of the walnut creek municipal code to comprehensively update the city's signed ordinance second

Okay, roll call. Commissioner Moran? Yes. Commissioner Kound? Yes. Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Vice Chair Klopp? Yes. And Chair Needing? Yes.

And the motion passes. Wonderful. Now on to, thank you so much. Now on to item number five, which is commission considerations. Any discussion among the commission? Last time we were very chatty. No. And then next, number six, commission member and staff reports or announcements.

So just your bi-monthly or bi-weekly reminder that you have a joint commission meeting on the general plan for the existing conditions report on October 22nd. And then because the chair had pointed out our parcel viewer, I just give it a shout out in case anyone is listening or not aware of it. On our website, you could navigate to what we call parcel viewer. It is a map of the entire city. You can type in your address or if you know your assessor parcel number, it will pull up that property and it'll give you all kinds of good information such as your zoning. And as you know, there's so many hardworking team members here at the city. So a little shout out to Ben and JV who keep that alive and working for us. So that's it.

Thank you. And with that, we will adjourn. Thank you.