Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Oh, it's 6 o'clock according to my iPhone. That's a little fast. Calling the meeting to order. And it is 6 PM. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Burke?

Here.

Commissioner Barnett?

Here.

Commissioner Dombach.

Here.

Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins. Here. And Commissioner O'Neill.

Here.

Thank you. And Vice Chair Nugent.

Here.

Thank you. I'd like to point out that Commissioner Willers and Chair Weyrich are absent from tonight's meeting.

Thank you. Next on the agenda, a motion to approve the agenda. Are there any... Any edits to be made?

Move to approve. Second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Burke?

Here.

And you can provide aye for approve agenda and then nay to not approve.

Aye.

Thank you. And Commissioner Barnett?

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach?

Aye.

Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. And Vice Chair Nugent? Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

The Pledge of Allegiance. Sheila O'Neill, would you lead us in the?

Absolutely.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Comments from the public. At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda. It is recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less. For items appearing on the agenda, the public will be invited to make comments at a time the item comes up for commission consideration. Upon being acknowledged by the chair, please step to the podium and speak into the microphone. Begin by stating and spelling your name. Do we have anybody here in the audience tonight that is speaking something general that is not on the agenda? Seeing none, okay. Moving to the consent calendar. Are there any changes or edits to be made to the minutes? A motion, please, to approve the consent calendar.

We can approve all the items on the consent calendar in one motion. So are you also asking for approval of the request to install banners on the light fixtures?

Thank you, Larry.

So moved to approve.

Second.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Burke.

Aye.

Commissioner Barnett? Aye. Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. And Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

We are now moving to the public hearing. First on the agenda for the public hearing is the discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a variance for increasing site coverage with a new covered patio at 841 Town Street, including action to approve a categorical exemption pursuant to section 15301 and 15303 of the state CEQA guidelines. Staff, a report.

Good evening, Commissioners. Associate Planner Jacob Dunn. So here to talk about the variance at 841 Town Street. So this property is located in the Central East Planning Area. The property is 8,819 square feet. It sits in a residential neighborhood near MacArthur Park, the east side of town. The applicant here is proposing a new 205 square foot covered patio in an open space between the residence and attached ADU. The residence is currently considered legal non-conforming due to its site coverage. So this requires a variance to add the covered area, allowing a further increase to the total site coverage on the property. And in the site plan, you can see the area marked there in gray that shows the location where the new roof is proposed. And then this site plan shows the full roof construction that will occur. So this proposed covered patio is aimed to serve the existing ADU and create a private covered outdoor space, which would go over an existing paved area. The applicant's aiming to provide an additional space for the ADU just to increase its livability. It was mentioned by the applicant that There was just concerns over the fact that it was paved and increasing site coverage due to roofs is based on the definition of site coverage in which we can go into later if there's more questions about that. So I just wanted to bring that up. So in accordance with the findings, the proposal complies with all other development standards. It doesn't have any issues with setbacks or anything like that. The property is posed with special circumstances due to its size and shape, requiring a larger driveway space, which takes up more site coverage, which the driveway is considered part of the site coverage. And the approval would provide just further opportunities for users of the ADU in general. And the work isn't expected to impact public health, safety, or welfare. And I'd like to mention that we've also received numerous letters of support from neighbors approving this project and showing support that they would like to see this project approved for the applicant. So staff recommends planning commission approval of the variants for the new covered patio and increased site coverage at 841 Town Street. Staff's available for any questions, and I believe applicants available as well.

commissioners as does anyone have any ex parte communications to disclose okay questions from the Commission yes is this space open at one end it is yeah it will be open element and so just so I understand the rules this is not Creating a new purely interior space in the house. Correct. It's just covering what has been an exterior space. Correct. And it's still open on one side, so it's not conditioned.

Correct.

Why would this require any planning commission approval at all?

Yeah, so we always count porches and covered patio areas as part of the site coverage. So this is just an uncovered area that would now add to that site coverage. The way we've interpreted site coverage in the past, and we've gone over this at some previous Planning Commission hearings, was that it specifically includes the driveway or areas accessible by vehicles and any area that's covered by a structure. And a porch and covered area is considered part of the primary structure and would be considered part of the structure itself. And so would a canopy considered part of the structure? A canopy, like a detached one, would be considered part of the site coverage as well.

Yes. And how long has that been applied as a rule? It just seems very strange to me.

So the floor area ratio is the one that doesn't include porches and canopies. But site coverage, the way the definition reads, it just says all structures. And so anything that, per our definition of structure, structure is anything basically that touches the ground. So when you say canopy, I would say an awning wouldn't count, but a post in the ground canopy would.

Has the planning department ever considered a tighter definition of on this particular item with an eye towards relieving property owners who are doing a modification I would refer to as modest or practically negligible.

It's on my list.

Oh, okay. Thank you very much.

Along with the aspect of it covering having the driveway and parking. As we know, if we really want garages to be in the back, then we don't. want to count all that driveway to get to that garage to the back. So it is on my list.

Thank you.

And I'll just mention that the currently paved areas and backyard and front yard spaces are also considered part of open space in the definition for open space, any paved walkable area.

Any other comments from commissioners? Questions? OK. Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward?

Yes. My name is Robert Baumann. I'm the architect on the project. And I believe we have just a certain amount of time, what, a few minutes, three minutes, doesn't matter? Okay. I don't need to belabor what they've already explained, but I am here for questions, and I would like to be able to respond, because I know that sometimes the discussion goes in different directions once I'm done speaking, so... I would like to be able to come back if it does go in the direction where you want some more explained. But I agree with what you said, Commissioner Barnett, that I think that the rules, the guidelines regarding coverage, site coverage, building coverage, really need to be looked at just coming from a design standpoint and how difficult it makes it to do something so simple. Thank you. Oh, and let me just say that the owner of the property is here as well, Terry Meyer, and she'd be happy to address any questions too. Thank you.

Thanks. Comments from the public. Would anyone like to come forward? Seeing none. closing the meeting to the public. So moving on to comments from commissioners.

I want to thank you, first of all, for inviting us out there. We all saw that email, but it just didn't seem necessary. I also want to thank you for reaching out to neighbors to get their support. That's so useful. Thank you very much for doing that. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Yes, please.

I just want to, for the record, back what Commissioner Barnett said, and I'm glad it's on the list.

Thanks. Other comments? Okay, so a motion for this agenda item.

Move to approve variance for increasing the site coverage of the new covered patio at 841 Town Street.

Second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Burke? Yes. Commissioner Barnett? Aye. Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? Yes. And Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Moving on to item 4.2, discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a major design review and exceptions for a new expansion on a historically eligible residence and new carport with reduced setbacks at 230 East Napa Street, including action to approve a categorical exemption pursuant to section 15301, 15311, and 15331, historical resource restoration rehabilitation of the state CEQA guidelines. Staff report, please.

Of course. So this property is located in the central east planning area. It is a 11,850 square foot property. It is in a residential neighborhood about a block away from the plaza. The applicant is proposing an interior remodel and addition to the residence, as well as a new carport and covered patio. The additions to the residence will add a total of 197 square feet to the side and rear, which will accommodate the interior remodel of a kitchen, bedroom, and closet space. The addition will require the removal of an existing deck in the rear and in the side, and replace with a new deck at the rear with a porch facing the backyard. The site addition requires an exception for a reduced setback to five feet and five inches, which will exceed the standard by two feet. And the residence is currently, sorry about that, set back about eight feet. The applicant's also proposing the replacement of their existing garage with a new carport. The garage will be transitioned to an ADU, so they're adding a carport to accommodate the covered parking space requirement for the main residence. And the carport requires exceptions to its setback, which will be reduced by one foot and to the height, exceeding the height by one foot and one and a half feet. So here's a visual of the current site plan where you can see the decks in the rear and the extension of the driveway to the existing garage. And this is the proposed site plan for the work described. The setback exceptions have been highlighted in purple there. So you can see that on the site addition and on the carport. And then the other expansions have been highlighted in blue. The site plan also shows the removal of that driveway in front of the existing garage and the remodel of the garage to an ADU. The new carport will accommodate, like I said, it will accommodate the primary residence. But I want to mention that we did receive a comment from a neighbor just with concerns over the exception of the height standard, given that it's in their field of view from their residence. So I just want to make sure that that's known to the public. The porch framing that you see in the front here on this elevation for the existing proposed south elevations has been identified in the historic resource evaluation as the most architecturally detailed feature of the residence based on that report. And then here is the existing and proposed west elevations, and you can see the proposed carport on the right side of the screen. And then here's the rear elevation and the applicant is aiming to maintain that architectural style consistent with the front that you saw to create consistency in its historical significance overall. And then this is the existing and proposed east elevation with the change to the side deck with the expansion on that side as well. So the residence was reviewed for its historical significance by AP Preservation, and it was found to be eligible for listing on the historic register. It was found that the house has association with the historic growth and development of Sonoma's east side, and it was also connected with three historically significant individuals named Luther Turton, which was a prominent architect, Ralph Murphy, a prolific builder in the area, and a gentleman named Robert Pope, a well-known attorney. It was described as a work of master architecture and built specifically by Luther Turton and Ralph Murphy. The proposed work aims to preserve the property's historic status by maintaining the existing colors that you see on the screen. Those are consistent with the existing, and maintain that style and uniformity of the residence. The windows will also resemble the existing windows, and no changes are going to be made to the residence aside from what's been shown on these plans. So in accordance with the findings, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the design standards, and it's going to maintain the characteristic of the existing structure. The project's not expected to cause a loss of the property's eligibility status for historic listing, and the proposal doesn't impact any applicable preservation plans or guidelines in the area. For the variance, the adjustment aims to be consistent with the general plan, as it would allow the preservation of the residence, and that's the whole purpose of it, without having require a large-scale remodel of the home. And it's not expected to pose a significant effect on public health, safety, or welfare. So staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the major design review and exceptions for the remodel of 230 East Napa Street. And staff's available for any questions. And I believe the applicant's available on Zoom. I'm not too sure.

Sorry, I have a question for staff first. Jacob, is it our requirement, the city, to have the covered parking? Is that why they have that carport out front?

Yes, for primary residence you have to have at least one covered parking space.

Is it possible for us to have a variance in saying no carport, no covered parking?

We haven't had one, and I think we could, yeah. Because that's a basic development standard, so variances allow and exceptions are allowed for the basic development standards.

Well, I'd like the applicant to speak to that, too, but my issue with the street view is the aesthetics and taking away from the original design by putting that carport in the way, which is probably similar to what the neighbors' issues were. So if they could address that, that would be great.

More questions for the staff? Go ahead.

Well, I've got two. With what part of the structure was the neighbor's concern about height?

This was the carport, the height of the carport.

Does the carport height exceed some legal limit?

By one and a half feet, yes.

And what's the standard? What rule is it that's applied to the carport?

Accessory structures have to be nine feet tall at five feet from the setback. It is going to be, the exception's requesting a four foot setback, and the overall height will be 10 and a half feet.

Okay, and of course, any residential property owner is entitled to put a second story by right which isn't happening in this project. And there is no second story on this house, if I recall. There is actually a second story. Second story. There is one. And so how is it that the height of the carport

So I get what you're asking. So the heights on the primary structure, there are second floor setbacks for the standard development standards for just the primary residence, which typically is an additional three feet to the basic standard for every 15 feet of elevation. And so the second story is typically set back further than the first story. OK. My other question is,

My understanding of the ADU law is that a JADU, typically a garage, attached to the house eliminates the need for any parking requirement or garage. In other words, if you eliminate your garage in your home, you don't have to have a garage. That's correct. I'm unaware of any condition that says you are then required to have covered parking. There isn't any.

That's correct. If you're converting your garage to an ADU, you're not required to provide parking.

Right. So at some point I thought you, I heard you say, Jacob, that there was a requirement for covered parking. that was triggered by the conversion of the garage to an ADU.

I think the intention is just to provide a covered parking space.

I understand, and if that's the intention of the property owner and they want to do that, that's their prerogative. I'm just making it clear that my understanding of the law is that there's no condition that you must provide now a new parking availability, covered parking, for the parking eliminated when a garage is turned into an ADU. Okay, that clarifies that. Thank you.

On the same theme, I have two questions. Could you go back to the image that has the front, the Napa Street, the front of the house with the new garage on the side? Okay. So the first question, I understand what the variance is for, but I kind of want to pull on that thread that when you look at the height of that compared to the height of the house, I'm curious and maybe the person who has a comment will tell us what is, it's almost dwarfed by those things. So I'm curious to understand the concern that they have with this because it is, It's in front and maybe it takes away from that aesthetic and that's what they are referring to. So that's question one But and the other question gets to this this covered garage thing and I wonder if that's on the list Jennifer the requirement to have a coverage a covered or a garage No for a primary

There is no requirement.

There is a requirement for a single-family home. There's not a requirement to replace a garage that's converted to an ADU. But your question, I know, is more about putting on the list the discussion of not requiring covered parking at all for housing. Yes.

I guess the other the other question will wait for the For the the comment from the neighbor and if I just may back up is there any expert take communications that need to be disclosed Thank you Okay, so any further questions for staff I WITH THE APPLICANT, DO I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE ON A ZOOM CALL? OKAY. WOULD WE LIKE TO INVITE THEM TO SPEAK AND PRESENT?

HELLO. THIS IS CAROL MARCUS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION. IT WAS VERY THOROUGH AND I APPRECIATE THAT, THE JOB THAT YOU DID, JACOB. The issue, the seeming issue is about the carport and it is the applicant is choosing to have covered parking even though we realize that covered parking is not a requirement by having converted the garage into an ADU. They would like covered parking. And if this were a true, well, this is an accessory structure, and which would be allowed to actually be 12 feet in height. We're only proposing 10 1⁄2 or 11 feet in height and only a one-foot encroachment into the side yard. So were this an actual gable-roofed structure, it could go up to 12 feet. So we're not even asking for that maximum requirement. And it's not a garage. It is simply a carport.

Hello, Carol. This is Donna Dombach. I just have a question. Are you aware of the comment from the neighbor and their reference to the view?

I was not up until now.

And I have a question for Jacob because you said that there was a limit and Carol is saying that as an accessory unit, it can go up to 12 feet. but the limit is because of the variance, the encroachment of nine, of 10 and a half?

No, so for an accessory structure to be five feet from the setback, it has to have a wall height of nine feet. It can be 12 feet at 10 feet from the setback. So there's a specific amount of feet that the structure would need to be located away from the setback to be able to reach a certain height. Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Can I speak again or?

Yes, please.

And the reason that we're asking for the one foot encroachment into the side yard is so it aligns with the existing driveway, which we would prefer not to have to realign the historic driveway. We'd prefer not to have to realign the driveway, move it in an extra foot to meet the side yard requirement of encroaching one foot into that setback.

Thank you, Carol. How wide is the.

Carport I don't have the drawing in front of me. Sorry, Larry.

Oh, okay. The only reason I asked having lived with a carport. And and had my late wife take off the car mirror. Several times backing out. I think it is important to have a carport that's wide enough to get in and out without a matter of a few inches clearance of the mirror and whatever posts are holding it up.

Yeah, it's basically the same width as the existing driveway.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, Commissioner O'Neill, we'll open it back up to the staff. Questions?

Yeah, do we have any regulations that would prevent a homeowner from putting a temporary canopy structure over their garage, like you see a lot of people, not over the garage, over the car, instead of a built carport, you know those really ugly temporary, temporary, or should be temporary? Yeah, should be temporary. Do we have anything that, I mean, what I'm wondering is, I do think that the carport damages the aesthetics of the front of the house. But if we say no to that, can that property owner just go in and put in one of those bubble things or, like, you know what I'm talking about?

Prefab structure.

aluminum I've seen a couple it's the tent a car tent is what they are I would have to look into that it's not allowed to be a permanent structure but I don't think we have anything that far since it's outside of the front yard setback what those regulations would be around that So I don't know that I have a good answer for you right now to say that, no, they couldn't.

Thank you. Any further questions for staff? Seeing none, opening the meeting to the public for comment, welcome sir anyone in the obviously seeing none we're going to close the meeting to the public and any further Commissioner comments I appreciate Commissioner O'Neill's where you're going with us but I guess I have a different point of view because the structure is

kind of subservient to the rest of the height of the structure. And also, it's removable. So even if it was, even though it's quasi-permanent, someone could take it away and still maintain that historical structure of the house. So I would be supportive of putting in the structure with the variances.

I like the project overall. I don't like the carport. That's pretty obvious. I want to point out something that I thought was really cool in the report on this house. There was a female owner in 1882. in 1886 and 1939. I just think that's really awesome and I wanted to make sure everybody got a chance to highlight that because that was really cool. I think the project overall is great. I do not like the carport so personally I would like to see it motion to approve with the carport removed to be addressed later when we can address the concerns of the neighbor.

Further comments? Seeing none, a motion on this agenda item, please.

Well, I'll make a motion that we approve the project with the deletion of the carport, and they can come back later and request that separately when we've had a chance for the neighbors to understand that a little bit better. So a date uncertain.

Is there a second? Seeing none.

Is there an alternate motion?

I will move to approve the major design review and exceptions at 230 East Napa Street.

I'll second.

A roll call, please. Commissioner Burke?

Aye.

Commissioner Barnett? Aye. Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Commissioner O'Gorman-Jenkins? Aye. Commissioner O'Neill? No. And Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Thank you, the motion passes.

Thank you. Moving to item four. point three, discussion, consideration, and possible adoption of a resolution recommending city council adopt an ordinance repealing Sonoma Municipal Code Title 18 signs and display advertising, and adding a new chapter, 19.47, signs, and finding the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Act pursuant to section 15061, And there you have it. So staff report, please.

All right. Well, the moment we've all been waiting for, I think. At least I've been waiting for this moment. So just to kind of dig back to where we were last time and some of the things that have been changed since the last discussion and then with the new draft that you've seen now. I'm just going to kind of go through the list of what has been altered. So one of them was fixing the multi-face signs and how they were calculated. It was a discussion we had for a bit just to figure out whether double-face signs should be counted individually or grouped together. We decided they'd be grouped together. We changed some of the verbiage for the illumination limitations. We also updated the LED electronic message signs and added the inclusion of the electronic display devices at the request of Commissioner Barnett. And then we also included a maximum allowable area for signage for each type of property. set currently, and we'll go over it later, we can also alter it, but the maximum allowable area for residentially zoned properties is 25 square feet, commercially zoned is 100 square feet, and mixed use is 75 square feet, unless they wanted to get a variance to increase the square footage for their signage. Just to give you an idea on comparing that, currently we have it set at 15 square feet for the first 30 foot frontage on a building. And then it's two square feet per every five feet of linear for every five feet linear foot. I don't know how to explain that, but the best way I can is for every five extra feet, you get an extra two square feet. I did my best to calculate what kind of signs would be included for windows, maybe a post sign, and wall signs, and thinking about what your average frontage is on a building and what typically people would be allowed, and so that's where I came up with the maximum allowable area for each of these zones. And then I made some small tweaks to the specific standards that were also mentioned by Bob Sanders, who provided some expert guidance on how we should address each of those specific standards. So next what I'll go into is some of the last items that we didn't really get to touch on more and we wanted a little bit more information, a little bit more examples to try to be able to make a more informed decision. So we'll start with the MasterSign program. I went around and kind of took some photos and I'm trying to bring some images to you so you can get an idea of where we're going with this. So this is the Whole Foods lot. There's a master sign program on that lot. You can see the comparison between the signs here. And then these are some other businesses or locations that have multiple businesses on them. And kind of the type of multi signage you'd see there, at least on their post signs, these would all be considered post signs. So I think one of the things I wanted to bring up is how we were, talking about requiring the master sign program with the application for new permits and who the responsibility would be, whether it was on a new tenant or if it was on the owner. The other thing that we had talked about was the options provided for changing the responsibility to who it should go to and then what the, if there was gonna be a given allowance, additional allowance, if they do the master sign program. So those were some of the discussions we had last time and I know there's a lot of confusion as to how we would, how it would implicate owners and how it would affect them when they're going in to get a new sign. So I've made some new recommendations based on some of the comments that have been received, some of the discussions that we've had, and I know Commissioner O'Revin-Jenkins, you've brought up some comments as well, so I addressed those. And in addressing those, some of the recommendations that I have is to make the master sign program an optional permit so it's at the owner's discretion if they would like to seek a use permit to create a master sign program for their property they may do so it would be something that's completely optional and not required for any tenant that's going into a business and then it would also create a way for them to memorialize the standards with the city and create a record showing that these are the standards that the owner has decided should be set for their property and how they want their tenants to be able to follow. They'd be able to set those required sizes, the colors, the materials, whatever they'd like in terms of signage.

How many businesses have you specified would trigger the potential of a master-signed program?

It was three. I've double-checked, but it was three. Yeah, so we set it at three. And then the other thing that I am kind of adding there for recommendation is that if a new tenant wants to put up the signage, that as long as they're in compliance with that program, they don't have to get a permit. They just get the administrative review permit, and it just goes right through without having any discretionary review. And as long as they're compliant with what the owner has said, they can just get it. which is currently how it is now. If someone has a MasterSign program, we don't have a section for that that specifies this. But if someone currently comes in wanting to put in a sign and it complies with their MasterSign program, we approve it without discretionary review. And then the other portion of this is that if a tenant wanted to propose signage that deviates from the program that the property owner has set, that I would update it to basically say that as long as they've received written approval from the property owner and then they meet the basic requirement, the basic standards that are found inside our specific standards for signs, then they could seek approval for that, go through a use permit. So that would be a variance in that case. But they would have to get authorization from the property owner. So that's where I've ended with that one. And then the other option is to completely remove this section. So those are the two options that I've provided. So I know that the first chunk was a lot to chew on. But I'm just putting that out there as to getting feedback. I'll open it up for questions or comments in terms of those options.

I have a couple questions. So in your proposal to make a sign program optional, for the owner, what would be the incentive to have one?

The owner would basically have control over what their tenants are putting up for signage. That would be the incentive for that.

OK. And then for someone who got written permission, I just want clarity on this one, for someone who got written permission to do a different sign, I just want to make sure I understand. They go through a permitting process. They have to pay the permitting process and things like that.

Yeah, they'd have to get a variant. We would process it as a variance, and essentially we'd have to have proof that the owner has said it's okay. Thank you. So they'd have to see that plan. Okay.

Thanks, Jacob. I just have a couple just one question and might have already addressed it, but there was a lot in there So just just one quick question related to what triggers Planning Commission Review because I looked and I'm sorry you guys know me I nerd out on ordinances but there's like two different places when where it says Planning Commission approval and one where it says I community development director approval and I think, so I'm just looking for clarification. So any master sign program, would that have to come before us or would it only come before us if there was something that exceeded the requirements? And I can cite the sections if you want.

So I get what you're, I get what the question's based on. And so I just want to say that the current draft for the master sign program is intended to be altered.

Okay.

Gotcha. And so I think that's a good question to bring up in terms of how would we want the optional permit to be reviewed, whether it would be something that's reviewed by staff and approved by the director as an administrative process to approve a MasterSign program, or if that should be going through DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE PART OF APPROVING THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM WOULD BE IF THE OWNER WANTED TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES FOR THE SIGNAGE, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THEY CAN PROPOSE AS PART OF THEIR MASTER SIGN PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY END UP, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THESE IMAGES, MAY EXCEED WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR A POST SIGNAGE, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS ONE THAT YOU CAN SEE. THIS IS CATHERINE DENSON. I HAVE THE SIZES FOR THAT SIGN. I BELIEVE IT'S A NINE-FOOT BY NINE-FOOT SIGN. IT'S A QUITE LARGE SIGN. SO THAT WOULD, IN TERMS OF APPROVING THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, IT MAY BE, IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE APPROVED THROUGH A DISCRETIONARY PROCESS OR CAN BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

SO LET ME ALSO, THEN LET ME ASK ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION BECAUSE I SEE MY COLLEAGUES. MY REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE IS THAT IF YOU, AND I APPRECIATE THAT IT WOULD BE VOLUNTARY. That recommendation as in lieu of having it be mandatory because there are some components in the ordinance that they require I think a voluntary program is appropriate my understanding based on the review of the draft ordinance is that in exchange for entering into a master sign program you would receive some benefits so you have a 25% increase in monument side size 25% increase in post sign size and I'm looking at my notes and then a 25% increase in the property's aggregate sign allowance. So if you enter into a master sign proposal or agreement, you would have those incentives.

Yeah, so that was something that I had thought of as a consideration given the last discussion that we had, but it's also something where there could be no limitations such as those ones that were provided, or those could be the limitations to what a owner could ask for. So it's trying to set the standard for what does it automatically allow those, if those standards, sorry, I'm trying to gather my words. So the ones that are on the proposal, if let's say we agree that those standards should be set in place when they get an optional permit, administratively we could review that and say, okay, they meet these three, these requirements, and that could be reviewed like that. If we say that we don't want to set those as the standards for what an increased area can be based on the Master Sign Program and it's open to however much they would like to propose, then maybe that's something that would probably be better reviewed discretionarily by Planning Commission. Yeah?

No, no, no. I mean, I think I'll defer to my colleagues. I have a couple other clarifying. No, actually, it's a little bit separate and distinct from this, but I think the question that you're kind of asking right now is whether or not we want to

allow this incentive or do we just want to allow this to go through administrator review and then if they wanted to do something in excess then Planning Commission review so those kind of the options yeah I think it's more about either do we set a do we set a standard that makes it reviewable administratively or do we leave it open so that it's up for interpretation by the Planning Commission

Yeah, and I just wanted to follow up on two things. I mean, I think if you're going to make something, this is a comment, but it leads to a question. I think if you're going to make something optional, then it would be good to have some incentives for somebody to do that, that benefit them and maybe benefit the city. And so when we think about this situation where somebody has a master sign program and somebody wants to alter the sign, my recollection from all this previous work is that we set sign standards already so that they could be largely administrative. So in the case where somebody wanted to get permission to alter their sign, it seems to me it would flop into that category of what we set up for largely administrative approval. Is that fair? Okay, thank you.

Other comments, questions?

Let's go over your questions.

The last two are just technical comments.

Around the master sign program?

Yes. So first one, again, they're technical changes. You had two in here. So one is under 19.47030B to B. You say A3 for requirements. It's actually A4. Sorry, I read legislation. These things just stand out to me. I know. No, but if you're, yes. And then the second one, just a flag for you, is 19.47030B2C. You cite findings as A5. It's A6. Thank you.

Appreciate the clarification. That's the way my brain works. That's a reasonable copy.

It's years of reading legislation and statute. These things just pop out at me, so sorry. I just thought you'd want to get those technical changes.

I did my best to try to get them all corrected, so I apologize for the mistake there.

No, no apologies necessary. Comments from the public. Mr. Sanders, are you here to address this issue?

Robert Sanders. Well, this is a big moment, huh? We're close to getting it approved. I only brought about 25 changes. I don't know what that was. On the, there's some little, there's a couple things that slip through that on 4-21, no, let's see, hold on. On 4-16, it talks about a wall sign that can only be 15% of the building facade. I think usually you say it's, you can't exceed 80% of the building. So if you multiply 15 times the building, it'd be like 30 feet, you get a 4.5 wide sign. So a guy with a long name is in trouble. So I don't know where that came from.

So I was going to cover that later. We're currently on the master sign program, so I just want to stick to that, and then we'll get to there. I have a comment based on that specifically with some alterations that you provided. Okay.

And then the signs that are eight-foot setbacks, they should be five. I mean, if they're eight feet, every sign in town will be nonconforming. And the ones five are going to be like 50 will be nonconforming at five, but five seems reasonable for new signs.

Yeah, and I'm going to dig into that as well.

So that was about it. Oh, there's one other thing. There's a provision here that signs have to be 20 feet apart. We have areas where the widths on Napa, maybe you need to make it 10, 12, or 15 because we've got some really narrow retail buildings and they couldn't have their signs otherwise.

Thank you.

so Commissioner comments attended to the master sign program if I were a property owner with locations for multiple businesses I would like to have the option of insisting on a master sign program I think it should be voluntary But I think it's something that should be available and that would give me, as a property owner, control over the appearance of my property. So I think that it's good to be able to offer it. I think the inclusion of the incentives that you've put in are good because they further incentivize, as they're intended to, a property owner thinking about the appearance of their commercial location and the businesses included with it. So I think that's fine. And I also think that the suggestion that if a tenant wishes to to have a variance from the master sign program. They can only do so if someone has signed up with the city to have a master sign program by getting that property owner's permission. But once again, that would seem to me to be something that technically doesn't require any city codification. In other words, if I own a piece of property with three tenant locations in it, I don't need the city's permission to have a master sign program. I can just make my lease include that language, and that's the end of it. The city doesn't have to be involved, and the city doesn't have to get involved in any variances. It's just simply the way it works, as long as I and the owner have decided that's the way I want to operate. I like that as a way of going forward, and it will be interesting to see. I see this really as the nature of an experiment to see whether or not the inclusion of the incentive idea prompts multi-location property owners to want to have a sign program. I think most of them would want to anyway, just my gut tells me. If you invested in a property and you want the businesses there to succeed and you want it to be an attractive place for the public to come and conduct its business, then you want to have a harmonious facade you want to have an environment that's attractive to the public and and maintaining control over the signage on the part of the property owner to me would be essential but not everybody thinks like I do so making the incentive as part of an optional program makes sense to me and it'll be interesting to see how people respond to it

I'm also supportive of the voluntary ordinance with the incentives including those with the size differential that you were described I'm also supportive of if somebody does vary from that that any that that person just has to follow the administrative criteria so that it does become administrative and doesn't have to come in front of the commission thank you yes

Just want to say thank you. You did a fantastic job. And I'm sorry for all my emails and questions over time. I think I very much support the voluntary approach. I support the incentives. And I do not think any of this needs to come to Planning Commission. So appreciate all the work that you've done. And thank you, Jacob.

Any further comments from the commission?

I have one. So that was the first of the triplets?

That is, yeah, the first one. So we got through MasterSign program. I think I got enough feedback to be able to move forward with some, yeah, and we'll provide those at the end. So the next thing was this discussion that we had about the sizing. So we talked about whether the specific sizes that were provided in the standards were appropriate correct or not, but we didn't feel like there was enough examples to be able to make a decision on that. And then also the concern over the distance to the curb. So I'm gonna go through both of those things, talking about the size of the signs that I have presented here and then their distance from the sidewalk or property line or the street in general. So this sign you see here was measured at about seven feet by six feet, so a total of 42 square feet. The sidewalk itself is about a nine foot sidewalk, and the distance this sign is is about one and a half feet from the sidewalk. I provided the pictures that you see here. Exiting the driveway with a required right turn, I believe it's a required right turn only. But you can see as someone's walking right there, there's a little bit of visibility issue with being able to see that crosswalk on the right side. So if someone's mostly looking left, and when they take a look to the right, they may not see what's on the right as they're trying to enter traffic there. This sign here is the Pete sign. You can see from the stop sign, it kind of covers a little bit of that sidewalk, a little bit of the street. This sign is eight feet and eight, eight feet tall and six, sorry, eight by six. So it's 48 square feet. And this one also is the same distance from the sidewalk and it has the same, the sidewalk is just as large, but there's a little bit less walkability on that sidewalk.

When you compute the square footage, Is that from the top of the sign to the ground? Correct. It is? Yes. Okay. So the open space below the sign is considered part of the square footage calculation?

In these, yeah. I just kind of, I didn't have, yeah, I didn't get a chance to fully measure the open space. So it is less than 48 square feet in terms of that open space. So, yeah, my apologies with that one. I do recognize that that should have been a little bit more clear on that one. Going to this one here, you can see at the left side, that sign is about five feet by six and a half feet. It's about seven and a half feet from the sidewalk, from the side street, and then it's four and a half feet from the sidewalk. on the front, and then, it's kind of hard to explain there, but five feet from the sidewalk from Broadway. And then the one that says Catherine is about eight feet by eight feet. You know, I might have actually calculated the square footage correctly on these, so I apologize. I did this the last time right before the hearing, and I was absolutely prepared for that, and so now I'm trying to go back into memory for this. But I know that this one is five feet from the sidewalk on Broadway and three feet from the side street, and I took this picture from the street if you were exiting the street onto Broadway. So this is just kind of a view to your left if you were coming out of the side street. This is Woodfield. There's a Woodfield sign. There's that smaller sign on the left image there, which is five feet by five feet. It's three and a half feet from the sidewalk on Broadway, and then it's seven feet from the driveway. And then the Shell sign is approximately five feet by 15 feet. It's a half foot from the sidewalk of Broadway, and then you can see that it's in the driveway there. These show you here for this Allstate sign on the left is 9 feet by 7 feet, 6 feet from the sidewalk. And then the Napa Sonoma sign there is approximately 6 by 6 feet. And it's about, I think, 2 or 3 feet from the sidewalk. So there's a lot of ranges between all these signs and the distances from the sidewalk. I think currently our distance from sidewalk, which I know has been mentioned as needing some update, I think is currently currently minimum eight foot setback from the prop from the front property line for the monument signs and then it is varies for different properties, but that was something we brought up at the last hearing and I think the Consensus was that we wanted it from the property line and not from the sidewalk because it varies So that's why it was updated for that And can you remind me the property line does not include this sidewalk, correct? It sometimes it does So this is just something I wanted to bring up. This gives you an idea of the sign sizes. I'll tell you right now that for, at least for commercial signs, the max square footage on a commercial property for a post sign, like many of the signs you saw here, is 24 square feet, which would be the area not including that open space. And then for monument signs, it's 32 square feet. So in this image specifically, you can see the sign on the left is a post sign, and the sign on the right is a monument sign. So this kind of gives you an idea of both of them. And I believe, yeah, so that's just kind of give you an idea. So the left sign is 63 square feet, and the right sign is 36 square feet. And the current standard for monument is 32 square feet, and for post it is 24. So if we believe that there's any changes or modifications, I'll just open it up. just to discuss that distance from curb and then whether the sizes seem accurate or seem good for what's been proposed on the current requirements.

Thanks, Jacob. Yeah. Yeah, I do want to revisit this because it's hard to know. If it's from the property line, we don't know where the property line is. There might be a lot of variability. And ultimately, what we're trying to do is ensure that people have an unhampered walkway and also some visibility from the street. So if you were to make it from the property line, which I know we said we agreed to, where would that assurance fall of trying to avoid that?

unencumbering those two things versus if there was a sidewalk and we made it some distance from the sidewalk initially I had made it from the sidewalk with the concern that that would be the case that if you did it from the property line you may end up with a sign to the sidewalk then you may want so it's just posed as an option

Well, it seems to me that the most compelling issue here has to do with public safety, which is when a sign is adjacent to a driveway or a vehicle egress, that the view of someone coming on the sidewalk is not obstructed. I recall some discussion, or I've imagined it, in the past about a visibility triangle, which to me, is actually the standard that should be applied. Because what we have is a condition in the city of a lot of variability of the width of sidewalks and indeterminate property line significance. In other words, a property line may or may not intrude into the sidewalk, so forth. So there is no clear visual identification of a property line. You can see it on a land use map. But other than that, you're not going to be able to use anything from a purely objective standpoint that's easily determined visually as to whether or not the placement of a sign encumbers safety in any way. So I'd like to go back to this issue of this safety triangle and suggest that to overcome this difficulty of an absolute measurement that we simply have as part of the administrative and approval process a determination of that safety triangle and the visibility the standard and which would mean that if someone wants to put their sign five feet from the curb and and it doesn't interfere with or pose a safety problem, that there'd be no problem with that. On the other hand, someone could propose a sign 10 feet from the curb or 10 feet from the property line or whatever the standard is you want to look at, and because of the specific conditions on the ground of that driveway and egress and pedestrian location, that that wouldn't work even at that distance. And I think that's the standard we should apply. I think we're trying to come up with a numerical quantitative approach, which is always going to run up against the reality of the physical properties of a situation. And I think those physical properties ought to be the determining factor.

Absolutely. We don't currently have a site visibility triangle standard set in the city, and that is typically reviewed by engineers because it's a case-by-case basis for site visibility triangles. The current ordinance is set at five feet from any driveway or any accessible walkway or anything like that, and that's what the current standard is. So this aims to capture what we currently have as a standard while dealing with the fact that we do not have a site visibility triangle standard set.

And the absence of that is a matter of budgetary constraints, or is it simply?

It's just that the Public Works Department just has never adopted one that's typically an engineering streets determination. I will say you have a version of that in our fence ordinance, right? So that's part of the reason why we only allow three foot fences or three and a half feet in the front yard, right? Is because our driveways as we back out and then at the corners of streets, They have to have a 75% see-through portion on that site triangle so that you can see around the corner. So that's part of the issue with some of these monument signs. Some of them are fine. They're not near the driveways or anything like that because there may not even be a driveway on the front. And then in some cases like this one, you can't see anything coming out. You're gonna have to come into the sidewalk to be able to turn. And we have a few that are like that. And it's partially just because it was put so high. But I get it also because it's so far back from the street. So there's all those things that are playing into it. We do want visibility, but we also want that safety. And I think that was what Jacob was trying to find, that middle ground. We can do a site visibility triangle. It's not anything crazy. A lot of cities have them. It's usually seven by seven. So we can look into writing that. I would suggest that we still have a minimum setback from the back of a sidewalk just to create that nice consistency of signs, at least a minimum. And most will put it there because they want it as close to the street as they can get. And then just nice consistency. Otherwise, we're going to get lots of fun signs in town.

I don't have the idea of a minimum setback from the sidewalk and we have a variety of widths of sidewalks around town but I still think you agree you need to have some standard but I think even that standard ought to be subordinate to a visibility safety triangle and that's going to as far as I'm concerned that's the determining factor and should be the determining factor, and I think will eliminate some of the inappropriate choices that are made about sign placements. I mean, I think this provides us with a quantitative absolute standard that can be calculated and measured and pertains specifically to safety. And I think that ought to be our objective. And the aesthetic objective, to me, is secondary to that. And while I think, for example, this setback from the sidewalk as an aesthetic objective is fine, but it's secondary to me to the safety factor. And I don't know. EXACTLY HOW THIS WOULD CHANGE HOW WE WOULD PROCEED IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO ENGAGE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, AN ENGINEERING STANDARD AS PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF PROVING THESE THINGS.

THAT CAN BE A POLICY. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CODIFIED.

OKAY. WELL, THAT WOULD BE MY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT AROUND THAT. You know, the safety triangles are usually made in those areas for safety, right? Turning and things like that.

Well, we're not talking about an actual triangle. We're talking about a visual.

I understand what it is. But most, they're most applicable when it comes to a crosswalk or turning. So in the situation, and I'll wait, these guys are, wait for you guys to finish. Oh, it's okay. In a situation where you are not near a crosswalk or you are not near something where a safety, that triangle is as pertinent, I do think that having a setback from a sidewalk seems reasonable. Because you're going to set up that safety triangle, but if you're in the middle of a grassy area, it doesn't really apply. So I think in that situation, what would apply would be a setback from the edge of the sidewalk, as you suggested. Now whether does it have to be five feet or can it be three feet? I just think again.

It just should not encumber the movement of people on the sidewalk Bob Sanders most of the situations are set the triangle has been for the corners, right and But you should mention the driveways and the corners. And so in the middle of a block, I do think there should be some setback back from the sidewalk. Because too close, somebody's going to hit it walking down. It should be three feet or something setback. But when it comes to the driveway, you really want to pick a number that is right. Because I see that all the time where you're... If you're coming out of Cregan Auto or, I don't know, all these, there's a lot of little driveways that you can't see the pedestrians.

Yeah, I mean, I'm supportive of both and used in those instances, one for the site triangle and one for, you know, walking and off the sidewalk.

Any other questions or comments for the staff or comments from our commissioners? Do we have part three?

Yes. Sorry, one sec. OK. So we got some direction on that. So in terms of that, there's no comments about sizing. We feel that the specific standards that have been provided for sizing seem about correct. That's the guidance I've received. OK. So going from there, the last couple items that have been brought to my attention specifically revolve around, as Bob Sanders mentioned, was the 20-foot distance between the projecting signs. So this is between each business. You know, it was suggested that it should be reduced from 20 feet because there are businesses, at least specifically in the Plaza. Um, primarily that's where you're going to see this, or the projecting signs are closer than 20 feet. You might have a building that has a 20 foot frontage. 2 different 2 different businesses that have 24 frontages or the ones that are on. Uh, East Napa street just passed, um. First Street East, those businesses that are literally right next to each other, share doorways almost. They have projecting signs that are pretty much two feet from each other. Sometimes those ones might be a little bit more complicated. So there is a standard that requires a distance between the projecting signs. And so I just wanted to bring that up that it probably should be reduced. I don't know to what or whether it should even be there. it creates a problem for someone in the future then that may be the case but given the fact that we know that there are businesses that have projecting signs that are so close this is this is probably too probably too much can you I mean it seems reasonable but maybe there's an opportunity to kind of go and figure out what seems reasonable based on what we have now because it's For me, I mean, I think even just bringing it down to two or five feet, I can maybe show a Google Street image of the businesses that are on East Napa Street. But I think in terms of what it should be, I think it can be pretty minimal.

All right. I'm curious as to what problem it is that we're trying to solve here. The problem is that the current standard says 20 feet, and it was mentioned that it should be- No, I understand that, and I think we ought to just do away with standard entirely.

That sounds good to me.

I mean, I think that first of all, it's up to the landlords, and it's between the landlords and the business owners as to where they want to put their signs. I think that's fine. The only problem I could foresee is businesses obscuring each other's sign by being too close. But that's between the businesses and the building owners. And we're getting into what I think of as the inevitable human element in the conduct of our civic affairs. And I don't think you can eliminate that entirely with rules. I think that if, for some inexplicable reason, If I was running a business on East Napa Street and a neighboring business wanted to put up a sign, decided to put it six inches away from mine, their sign would be obscured by mine, and mine would be obscured by theirs, and what would be the point? So I think this is sort of a standard in search of a problem, and my general approach in an increasingly bureaucratic world is that we ought not to be creating problems with our regulatory structures. We should be solving problems, but we shouldn't be creating them. And in this case, I think we're a solution in search of a problem here.

MS. So – oh, go ahead. Jacob, are you saying that these signs on East Napa are all currently out of compliance?

I haven't measured them myself, but I don't think all of them comply with 20 feet distance between each other. I think most of them are probably less than that.

And clearly there's no enforcement of the standard as it is today?

Correct.

Correct.

So there's no obscurity here either.

I mean, they're clearly doing their job.

Right. And this standard was in the ordinance when I took it on, and I just never touched it. I just left it as it was. So...

I'm in agreement with Commissioner Barnett that it's a solution to a non-existent problem.

Other comments?

Well, I would be curious, Bob Sanders, if you have ever seen this be an issue, if there wasn't regulation about the distance between signs, have you seen this become a problem?

Generally not because in Sonoma we have these little, the cluster of this little, there aren't a lot of signs there, it's a cluster of old historical buildings that got built that way and they are, you know, some of them really don't have much frontage in those buildings, maybe 12 feet or something, so each one gets an identity sign and we don't think around the square can you think of any other most areas around the square are pretty spaced out commercial stuff's not a problem so I just think we have a unique situation historically so I would eliminate it and then as people come in to get their approvals or whatever you would identify somebody that's not being nice to the neighbors and I don't I don't see that ever happening actually good

Thank you.

OK. I think I got some good feedback on that. And so I think we made some modifications based on that comment.

based on your modifications, and now are we at a point where you can take this to the City Council? Or do you have to bring it all back to us?

The last comment that was made was by Bob Sanders, and I just want to address it, was the 15% width of frontage for wall signs is the maximum, and that if you end up with a 35-foot frontage, that only allows you with about a 5 1⁄4-foot wide sign. If you have a 25-foot frontage, that gives you about 3 3⁄4-foot wide sign. And if you have a 15-foot frontage, that gives you a 2.5-foot wide sign, and that would be the limitations for your wall signs. And Bob Sanders wanted me to mention that that should be increased from 15% to something else. And I was not provided with a percentage, but I just wanted to address that.

Normally it's done the opposite way. It says they don't want somebody to come in and take the whole width of the building, so they've been saying 80 percent. You could make it 75, but it's the idea of not – it's the other way that all the regulations I've seen is not – usually it's 80 – don't exceed 80 percent of the maximum of the building.

This is for what kind of sign? A wall sign? This would be a sign that's affixed to the face of the building? Correct.

And the 80% is the 80% of the width.

Well, that sounds extremely excessive to me. And I hate the idea of You know, 80% of each of the frontage of buildings being signage.

A reader's book certainly has that 80%, I would think, now.

Again, it depends on which individual retailer you're talking about and if they have a long name or a short name. I think it also depends. OMA is in good shape.

So you could always... Did you find it? Thank you. All right. Walls. The signs link shall not exceed the width of the framed portion of the storefront and shall not exceed 15% of the building facade. All right. So. Can you give me an example? Sausage Emporium Mosaic is what it's called now. That's probably our skinniest building in town. And They came in for a variance to basically do quite a large sign previously. So there is, again, options for those smallers. Or we can say if you are a larger one, then you're limited to your 15% because right next door to them is Pangloss. Could you imagine if Pangloss filled up 80% of... so we're talking about 80% of the width not a square footage no it's all the way across the other width so 80% of yes I know but we are talking 80 so 80% not the vertical also no we're just talking across the square footage is gonna limit it right away it you know so together they'll limit them so I You can keep it just the framed portion of the storefront so that at least it's not going from wall to wall on the end.

So that means it's 80% or the maximum square footage allowed, whichever is less. Do I understand that correctly?

I don't think it's whichever is less.

Some signs are rectangular and not so wide. Some are stretched out.

But there's some constraint. What we're doing, we seem to be applying two constraint standards. One has to do with percentage and one has to do with physical measurement. In other words, which is the standard that we're applying and which one does an applicant have to adhere to? And usually in a situation like this where you've got two standards that apply, you've got whichever is more or whichever is less. You've got some limitation. I don't understand what the limitation would be here. It sounds to me from what Bob's saying is that the square footage specifications are ultimately the limitation.

So let me give you an example. We are allowed to have a 10-foot square wall sign right now as the minimum all over the place. So if you have it at 1 foot times 10, that's a 10-foot width. Or if you have it at 6 inches, that's a 20. So that's why they've been saying you're limited to 80%. You don't want it all the way across for those 10 square feet. You can't stretch it to 20 square feet or 20 widths.

Well, you can have a 3-inch sign going to 20 square feet. But, I mean, a 3-inch sign going to 40, I mean... See, that's ridiculous. Of course it is. It's never going to happen.

So maybe you need both standards. But you don't want the... You never want a sign to be more than 75% or 80% of the width if the guy has a really long name and he gets 10 square feet.

So would the language be better to say that we have a... square foot standard which in no cases can exceed 80% sure of the frontage of the building that's good whatever the number is in other words if we define it then you've got a standard so rather than two that would appear to be potentially in conflict with each other so currently it

It seems like it doesn't read that, but it currently does read like you just explained. It's just 15%, not 80%. If you want it to be, it's currently one square foot per linear foot, and you get a max of 60 square feet max for your wall signage. And it's saying that currently it cannot exceed 15% of that frontage for the width. So if you want to make it 80% of the frontage.

Or not 80, but if 15 is really too small. It's very small, correct. You know, but again, I think what we're trying to guard against is that we don't have these massive signs.

Go back to the shopping center. So if Lucky's, you know, there's got to be a limitation, too, of a big building like you're saying. So I'm. I'm thinking about the small guys that are, you don't want to penalize them, but the big guys need a limit on the width. So you don't want 80% for those.

But the way out of that quandary unfortunately takes us into more complexity, which is including standards of wall signs pertaining to specific sizes of building facade frontages. In other words, you could have a standard for Bank of America in buildings of those dimensions, which would be a different standard than you would have for the 20-foot-wide shop on East Napa Street. But that gets into a level of complexity where you're essentially having to calculate the appropriate legal sign size for every various location in town.

Most buildings and most storefronts, regardless if it's our historic area or in new developments, the Lucky's, CVS, the Whole Foods, those are all different. That's why they all have master sign programs and they have a different treatment for the large storefronts. What we're looking to do is still provide adequate signage. We've allowed for a variance, right? So we still allow them to exceed. This is the example. So Sausage Emporium got a variance so that they could have a larger sign square footage wise. If you look at their sign, I'm going to guess that that's about 75% of that facade. If you look at Pangloss Cellars, I'm going to guess that's about 50% of their facade right there. Because the way we wrote it as well is it says storefront. So Pangloss Cellars, that entire frontage is their storefront, the way we look at it, because it's by what we would call the bay. So I just wanted to just point out those examples. I think When we want to treat it, I think we need to think about it as more of the 50-foot size or 30-foot size. What is that key that we want to look to? And just go from there. And then if somebody wants something bigger, they can ask for it. We're not saying that they can't. We're just saying, what are you going to allow us to approve? That's the idea. So you're going to let us approve Pangloss, and then Sausage Emporium would need to come to you for approval. Does that make sense?

Yeah. I think that is pretty clear based on the conversation. And I think what I'm hearing, I haven't heard everybody, is that it seems reasonable to have some limitation that's more than 15%. I'm okay with 70, 75. I mean, I'm okay in that area, but I guess we would need a consensus.

I'm okay with going to 80%. As long as we have the restriction on total square footage, I don't think that we're going to get into any trouble. And then anything beyond that would be come to the Planning Commission.

Can we take a straw vote? All those that like 80, just raise your hand. Okay.

Sounds great. And with that, that was the last piece.

No, we're not done yet.

What? No, just the last piece of questions and comments that I needed to be able to get to this point of being able to recommend approval to the city council. But we will go through the modifications that have been made prior to making that approval to be part of the recommendation.

And I can't find it in here, but when I read through it earlier, there was a note that painting on non-painted masonry walls was prohibited. Signs painted on a non-painted masonry wall was not allowed. But is that something that could still come forward to the Planning Commission if somebody had a proposal for that? And I'm thinking, I can't think of any in town, but you know, you've seen like those old brick buildings that have Hills Brothers coffee or whatever painted on it, something like that.

Sorry, give us one moment. We're just looking for that specific piece in code.

yeah I think that I would have them come to you the reason why I'm thinking that is think of the masonry wall that we have at oh my gosh what's the name of the building that cap was that is that so that's kind of one of those buildings that are historic we wouldn't want to paint it painting masonry it's very hard to remove so if something is clean Traditionally, for historic buildings, we want to keep it clean because the damage starts happening when you start sealing masonry walls.

Okay, so we can leave that as an option, but it would have to come to the Planning Commission.

They could ask for a variance for something. So any of these requirements that you see, they can ask to not.

Okay, cool. Thanks.

But I understand what you're talking about with the ghost advertising. The ghost advertising signs that you see on the side of brick buildings and things.

Well, I've seen them in other cities.

I'm surprised we don't have them.

Some are really beautiful.

Any further questions? At this point, are we approving this for you to take it? Are we approving this tonight so that you go forward to the City Council? Correct. And it does not come back to us?

No, it will not come back to you. And we'll go through those modifications that have been made for that recommendation to the City Council for approval.

Well, you're going to walk, you're going to, yeah, we're going to go through them to make sure that we captured what you said correctly. So therefore you can make sure that we did it right and that you're approving the right thing.

Yeah. So first it was the sign program in the applicability. We changed it to be optional and the termination to be, um, this is the question. whether it should be Planning Commissioner director for the determination based on allowing the increase of minimum maximum allowance and making this an optional permit if someone comes in requesting a master sign program I would vote for the director if we could get a straw vote that'd be great everyone in favor of director approval please raise your hand Okay, and then we also made corrections to the locations of each of these sections as you requested. So there's those for update and then the next section. It's longer than I remember, but I'm just kidding.

I hope when you present this to the City Council that you will indicate to them that the Planning Commission spent three meetings.

Three years.

Three years, whatever it is, that you will indicate to them the amount of time and rigor that went into this process. This was not a capricious, off-the-cuff process.

piece of work absolutely just let them let them know that unless they want to duplicate the the effort on their part that you just shut up and pass it I'll make sure the word for word the next spot here is for the projecting signs removing that requirement for them to be closer than 20 feet just to confirm and then after that we have the change for 80% of the building facade, not 15. And also the update to three feet, three foot setback from the back of the sidewalk, subject to a visibility triangle. And that is also shown here for post signs, which is this is for monument signs. Post signs and monument signs, we did it for both. And then, that's there, and I believe, yeah, that is the last of the modifications that we have made. So with that, we are looking to recommend approval to the, recommending Planning Commission adopt a resolution that recommends City Council adopts the ordinance for repealing title 18 and adding a new chapter nineteen point four seven percent so may I have a motion I I make a motion to adopt a resolution recommending City Council adopt an ordinance repealing Sonoma County Municipal Code title 18 signs and display advertising

AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 19.47 SIGNS AND THAT IT'S EXEMPT FROM CEQA. A SECOND.

SECOND. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER BURKE. YES. COMMISSIONER BARNETT. AYE. COMMISSIONER DOMBACH. YES. COMMISSIONER OGERMAN-JINKINS. AYE. COMMISSIONER O'NEIL. YES. AND VICE CHAIR NUGENT. AYE. THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

CONGRATULATIONS, JACOB.

WELL DONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ITEM FOR DISCUSSION? NOTHING?

WELL, LET'S START WITH WELCOMING COMMISSIONER VERK. YES, WELCOME.

ARE WE ON DIRECTOR COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS?

I think I'm in a hurry tonight. I don't know why. Please. Do we have director comments?

Please. I just wanted to make a quick comment a little outside of this conversation. But February 19th, we had a really thoughtful discussion about modifications to OSO. And I was reading tonight on the planning. Yeah, I was reading tonight before planning commission that OSO will be closing effective September 26th after 12 years. And I want to... just say how deeply saddened I am to hear about that. We spent a lot of time talking about those improvements. I think there was a lot of excitement following Planning Commission discussion, and I just want to say, express my Sincere appreciation to David, Kelly, and I think there's 14 employees that will be impacted, and I'm sorry that they were unable to move forward with those improvements. And I hope that as a planning commission, I think we do a good job of this, but anything we can do to foster and support our small businesses, and I'm just sorry to see them go. Thank you.

Yeah, Jennifer, are you able to add any background on what happened? It sounds like the building had more maintenance than they could handle. Had you heard anything?

I haven't heard anything. Diane just told me today that she read the article, which I had actually talked about it last night in just general sense of, like, in regards to Art and Luffy, which I will say here in a second. But, yeah, no, I had no idea.

Other comments?

So I did have a comment, sorry. So my comment is that last night city council approved the original ordinance for the in lieu fee, for the art in lieu fee or art requirement, putting it back to requiring it for multifamily housing of five units or more. and the $250,000 floor trigger. And so that was done last night and there'll be an adoption later. I will be bringing an ordinance forward at the next meeting in regards to creating different time extensions. An ordinance right now just says they're allowed one one-year extension. So we're bringing forward something That extent that more it's something that we discussed at our ad hoc Excuse me. You're talking about permits So we'll bring that at the next meeting and that's the regular meeting I was hoping that the general plan would be out by the end of this month, but that doesn't look like that's gonna happen. I'm gonna keep the special, did I even send the email that told you what the date of the special meeting is? I don't even think I did. All right, so I did, is it the 20th, Hannah, do you remember? October 20th is when I was looking to hold the special meeting based on the summary of availability of people. I think I only had like one absence for that and I think it was Commissioner Dombach on that one. But I'm going to hold that until I know for sure that we haven't released it. I do, since it's such a meaty document as well as the EIR, we're going to need more special meeting just for it so if that needs to be pushed to November that's fine. I am going to do a 60-day comment period so my plan is to have at least two meetings to talk about any comments and then that's also opportunities for the public to provide comments as well even though they do need to be written comments from the public on the environmental document Um, so that's that part of it. Um, and then also hopefully by the end of the year, that inclusionary ordinance will be done as well. We're getting there. We're getting there.

Let me ask a clarifying question on the October 20th date. Is that going to be an evening meeting? I couldn't, I can't remember what the windows were. Okay. So it would be evening. I'm just putting a hold.

Thank you. And another point of clarification, is that for the EIR or for the draft general plan?

So it's a 60-day public comment period for both. So we'll be released at the same time for comments on those documents. So as soon as I know more about when they'll be released, I'll let you guys know and then look for them because I'm hoping they'll be released before our next meeting. So cross your fingers.

Thank you. Any further comments from our commissioners? I do want to welcome Renata to our commission.

Thank you. I actually have a comment. No, I just want to thank all of you for making my first meeting so wonderful. It was really enlightening. And Commissioner Barnett, if I didn't know you were a writer, I would imagine that you were after tonight. And Jennifer, Jacob, Hannah, and Erlinda, thank you so much as well.

Thank you. Other comments? Well, then may I have a motion to adjourn this meeting?

So moved.

Meeting adjourned, and the time is 7.42.