Walnut Creek DRC advances draft overhaul of sign ordinance, backs A‑frame rules and administrative flex

Walnut Creek’s Design Review Commission spent its July 1 study session reviewing a comprehensive draft update to the city’s sign ordinance, focusing on clearer rules for portable A‑frame signs, illumination limits and a new administrative minor‑deviation process.

Curtis Sawyer, associate planner, opened the meeting by telling commissioners, “Tonight, we get to expand our horizons and talk signage,” and introduced consultants from Minteer Harnish who presented the draft. Nikki Zanchetta, associate planner with Minteer Harnish, said the city’s sign code had not been fully overhauled since 1992 and described outreach to a targeted business audience, noting the project restarted in 2024 after pandemic delays.

Commissioners reviewed eight focused questions in the draft. On administrative authority, the consultants proposed a minor‑deviation process that would allow the Community Development Director to approve limited departures from standards; the draft frames that limit at 20 percent for maximums such as sign area. Commissioners favored that approach over automatic allowances in many cases, asking staff to add objective examples (for instance a large setback or other visibility impediment) so applicants can know when director review is appropriate.

The draft raises the default maximum wall‑sign size for hotels from 25 to 50 square feet. Michael Gibbons, project manager, said the change reflected industry practice: “25 square feet…didn’t really support normal hotel signage.” Commissioners agreed to keep 50 square feet as the standard maximum and to treat any larger freeway‑proximate signage through the existing freeway‑oriented/DRC review path.

On routes of regional significance such as BART corridors and Ignacio Avenue, commissioners declined to extend freeway‑style signage allowances across transit corridors and mixed residential thoroughfares. Several members said master sign programs and site‑specific design review are the appropriate routes for properties that require special accommodation.

Illumination standards drew discussion about internal vs. external lighting and light‑spill. Staff read a current code limit as written in the draft: “In no instance shall the lighting intensity of any sign…exceed 75 candles when measured with a standard light meter,” and commissioners asked the code emphasize shielded, downward‑directed fixtures and avoid lighting the sky.

The draft proposes new, clearer standards for several sign types: painted wall signs (formerly prohibited), projected‑light signs (standards for projection area and mounting), cabinet signs (allowing halo/edge lighting under limits), and portable A‑frame signs. For portable signs the draft narrows allowance to three pedestrian‑oriented zones, limits one portable sign per business, requires durable materials (plastic frames prohibited; metal or wood allowed), and adds maintenance and storage expectations. Staff said portable signs placed in the public right of way would require an encroachment permit through Public Works rather than a separate sign permit; the encroachment permit provides an enforcement and liability mechanism.

Commissioners also discussed a scheduled update cycle and incentives for master sign programs. The draft includes a voluntary renewal incentive—administrative review and a reduced application fee—for master sign programs updated within a 10‑year window, intended to help businesses trapped in outdated master standards.

Consultants said staff will incorporate the commission’s feedback and return a revised draft to Planning Commission and ultimately City Council for adoption; no final votes were taken at the study session. Staff noted near‑term scheduling: the July 15 DRC hearing was canceled and an August 5 sign‑subcommittee meeting is tentatively planned.

The study session closed with staff direction to return a revised ordinance that adds objective examples for minor deviations, preserves the 50‑sq‑ft hotel wall‑sign cap (with DRC review for larger freeway‑proximate signs), emphasizes shielded lighting standards, and formalizes the encroachment permit path and enforcement for portable signs.