Caldwell holds workshop on 2025 sign code after businesses raise compliance, permitting and enforcement concerns

Robin Collins, Community Development Director for the City of Caldwell, briefed the City Council at a workshop on the 2025 sign code amendments and the concerns raised by sign companies and local business owners.

“The purpose of the sign code is really mainly to remove visual clutter, means to maintain aesthetics, maintain your property values,” Collins told the council, summarizing the code’s aims and the public outreach that preceded adoption. She said legal counsel had reviewed the code and found it content neutral.

Council and staff said no decisions were made at the workshop. Instead, council members indicated they want staff to meet with sign industry representatives and other stakeholders to review ambiguous provisions and consider potential amendments before returning to council for further action.

Sign-industry speakers at the workshop said parts of the new code are unclear, costly to comply with, or inconsistently enforced. Aaron Vance of Superior Signs urged clearer definitions for “pole,” “monument” and “freestanding” signs and asked that pole signs be limited to freeway-oriented zones. “Pole sign needs to be its own definition and only limited to a zone in the freeway area,” Vance said. He and other sign contractors said the code’s size limits and percentage rules for electronic message centers (EMCs) can make practical signage nearly invisible at driving speeds.

Candace Horn, director of government relations for Yesco (Young Electric Sign Company), said she surveyed roughly 40 local businesses and found little awareness of the code changes. “Not one of them knew anything about the sign code changing,” Horn said, and she urged a simpler, faster permitting process so businesses are not delayed in opening.

Craig Lookingbill of Lytle Signs described permitting that he said is burdensome: for a recent Starbucks job he said the city required nine separate permits and “27 separate fees” for different signs and electrical work. He recommended consolidating sign review steps to reduce time and cost for small businesses.

City staff explained aspects of the code that prompted industry concerns. Collins said legal nonconforming pole signs may remain in place provided they are not damaged beyond one-half of replacement value, are not structurally altered or relocated, and are not abandoned by more than the code’s vacancy period. She said the current vacancy threshold is six months (staff noted they would be open to discussing extending it to 12 months to match other nonconforming rules). Collins also summarized dimensional rules discussed in the code process (for example, she said the smallest sign allowance in some residential classifications is 24 square feet and in nonresidential districts 60 square feet) and explained that sign visibility studies informed size limits.

On enforcement, Collins told council the city has two full-time code compliance officers and one part-time officer to handle weeds, trash and land-use violations — including illegal signs — and that sign permits are reviewed when applications are submitted.

Council members asked specific compliance questions during the workshop. Councilor Stottick asked about a long-standing complaint that the Indian Creek Steakhouse sign was out of compliance; staff said that case predated current staff and enforcement steps had been started in the past but were not fully resolved. Councilors also pressed who would “police” illegal installations; staff reiterated the current enforcement staffing levels and enforcement process.

The presenters and sign contractors offered several technical and process recommendations: clearer definitions to distinguish pole/pylon/monument signs and freeway-oriented signage, streamlined permit checklists that focus on sign-relevant items, incentives or alternatives to costly monument requirements in some cases, and tighter but more precise EMC illumination and brightness limits. One presenter recommended reducing EMC brightness from the currently cited levels; staff said they were open to considering reduced illumination to support dark-sky goals.

Mayor and council members responded that the ordinance is appropriate to scrutinize and that staff should organize follow-up meetings. The mayor said staff will set up additional meetings with sign companies and interested parties to work through the concerns and, if needed, prepare proposed code amendments and a future public hearing. No formal changes to the code were adopted at the workshop.