Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

the regular meeting of the City of Sonoma Planning Commission. It's June 16th at 6 p.m. and I'm gonna call this meeting to order. Can I get a roll call please?

Yes. Commissioner Barnett?

Here.

Commissioner Dombach?

Here.

Vice Chair Nugent? Present. And Chair Weyrich?

Here.

I would like to point out that Commissioner O'Neill is going to be absent from tonight's meeting and Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins will be late.

Commissioner Willers is to be determined all right thank you Hannah all right do I have a motion to tonight's agenda as it appears second okay we have a motion by Commissioner excuse me Vice Chair Nugent and a second by Commissioner Barnett can I get a roll call Commissioner Barnett aye

Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weirich?

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

All right. Mr. Small, can you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

Mr. Small.

Mr. Small. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,

Perfectly executed. Thank you It'll pass it'll pass Okay at this time members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on tonight's agenda It's recommended that members of the public keep their comments to three minutes or less Although given the size of the audience tonight I will make an exception for items appearing on the agenda the public will be invited to make comments at the time the item comes up for Commission consideration and Upon being acknowledged by the chair, please step to the podium and speak into the microphone. Begin by stating and spelling your name. Is there any public comment for items not appearing on tonight's agenda? Ms. Cornwall.

Good evening. You can tell me if this is not right for the Planning Commission. I think it is. So I'm speaking this evening as the project director for Sonoma Valley Collaborative. And the item that I wanted to raise here is the really unusual opportunity that is in front of the city right now with the possibility of acquiring the Montaldo property. Burbank Housing is interested in it. So many of the difficult things about a project like that have been done. And what could make the deal work is if the city contributes more money to the deal. It would enable Burbank to really latch on and go for other sources of funding, which would seriously leverage the city's contribution. i know there's there are arguments out there that the city should let the housing trust fund build and get bigger um but uh we just hardly ever have opportunities like this and uh real estate is only getting more expensive and so i'm not really sure where to take this uh ask if it's to you or somewhere else but that is the point i wanted to make that that seems a worthy thing to revisit on the part of the city thanks okay great thank you caitlin i appreciate your comment

All right. Moving on to the consent calendar of tonight's agenda. Commissioner Burnett.

May I ask our development director a question? I responded to a question you asked about dates for the meeting of the affordable housing trust fund task force. But I don't recall getting a response back confirming which date was going to work.

I was waiting on one more response.

So we don't know yet?

No.

OK, thank you.

OK, with that, we'll move on to the consent calendar of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes or edits to the consent calendar? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Oh, boy, the women are tough tonight.

You got to be quick. You got to be quick.

And second.

Roll call on that, please.

Commissioner Barnett.

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach? Yes. Vice Chair Nugent? Aye. Chair Weirich? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, moving right along to tonight's public hearing. Item 4.1, discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a design review exception for a second floor addition to a non-conforming structure located at 100 Chase Street. Do we have a staff report?

weren't ready because we moved so fast on that you know you caught me unawares um all right so tonight um for gates community development director so thank you chair and planning commissioner so before you tonight is a public hearing for consideration of approval of the design review and exception to the floor area ratio for a two-story addition on a non-conforming structure located at 100 chase street and I will give you a short presentation. So again, oh, that's not the picture I was giving for. Ignore the site, Lynn. But it's on 100 Chase Street. It is residential low, and it is in a neighborhood, and it's close to our creek. It is in the historic overlay, central east, and it's about .22 acres. Here's the correct picture.

Can you back up just one slide?

Ignore the picture. Thank you. Did I miss that? You did.

Percy. Is this on the north or south side of the street?

It's on the north side. Thank you. So this is the house as it exists in 2024, according to Google Maps. So again, the proposed project is a two-story addition. It's going to be located at the rear of the property. I'll show you a couple other images here shortly. And as well as a 160 square foot rear porch that's covered. And then the finishes will be consistent with the existing home. Here is that site plan. Again, it is on the north side of the street. Here is Chase Street. Here's the driveway and that garage that you saw and that front porch. And then this is the rear and there's a pool in the back. So it's an interesting lot and it goes pretty far back.

Is this lot adjacent to the bridge?

No, it is not adjacent to the bridge. Okay. So this is the floor plan of that lower level. On the left side is the existing and then you can see those solid lines are what's being removed and then this is where the new house will take shape. And then where I've highlighted in red is where the addition is on that lower level. So you can see in the deck area is what they have filled in right here with the kitchen. And then here's that new covered porch right here. Here's the upper level. So here's that closet and linen area. And then you can see how this is that wall. That's where the bathroom is. and that's being extended towards the back over that kitchen. And then this area is being extended back from where that existing closet is to be in line with where the primary bedroom is. So that's the addition. And then here is that east elevation, which is the only elevation that you would really see the addition from, and then the rear as well, but as far as What we're looking at from the public right-of-way, that's kind of where you would see it. So the garage is in this front section, and then this is the addition.

Is it even possible to get that view?

Not really.

Because you'd be standing in an adjacent property in the rear of the property. And looking at the side of a big barn.

Yes, so the barn is really close to this existing garage. So you can see that second floor, but you would see a sliver of what that addition would look like. So in the analysis, we looked at setbacks, and the side setback is illegal nonconforming. That's the garage area, and the space behind the garage is within that side setback. But on that second level, they are conforming. with the new addition is conforming to our setback requirements for that additional setback that steps in the FAR has always so the floor air ratio didn't exist when this house was built in the 90s it was added later to the code in 2003 so this existing house already exceeded our FAR ratio and with this addition obviously they would be increasing it more But it does fall within our exception require allowances of 30%. So the exception is requested for this project to do this addition. Site coverage complies as well as the height and parking requirements as well. So for the design review findings, the project is located within our historic overlay, but the project, as I stated, is built in the 90s, so it was not historic. And it is an upper-level addition, so that's why, for design review purposes, we did need to come to the Planning Commission for their review. It is found to be compliant with the development code in the general plan, with that exception. And it does not have any historical characteristics that will be altered. And it will not impact that historic garage in the front, as all of the improvements are to the rear. The proposal is consistent with our adjacent development as well. And additionally, the residence that was built does not qualify as historic. And therefore, it does not need to meet any of the Secretary of Interior standards. And the proposal is consistent with design standards. and will not impair our local character. For the exception, it was found that the exception to the FAR is consistent with the intent of the general plan. It doesn't change the use of the property. The additions will utilize the existing setbacks for consistency in design and utilization of the site. And as I stated earlier, where the additions are do meet our setback regulations. The additions to the rear are not expected to impact any neighboring properties or result in any negative impact on public health, safety, or welfare. So with that, staff's recommendation is for Planning Commission to adopt the resolution approving design review and the exception for the two-story addition located at 100 and Chase, including approval of a categorical exemption for Class 1, subject to the findings and conditions of approval that were attached to the staff report. And that concludes staff's presentation. And the applicants are here. The moles, the mole brothers, are here. So they will be happy to answer any of your questions that I cannot.

Great. Thank you, Director Gates, for your presentation. At this time, I'll ask for any ex parte communication that commission members may have had with the applicant. Okay. I need to disclose a... very brief and general conversation with Casey Maul about this project in a social setting. And with that, does any member of the Commission have questions of staff before I invite the applicant forward to speak? Seeing none, I'll invite the applicant forward if they wish to come and address the Commission.

Uh, good evening commissioners and staff. My name is Tony mall and I'm here on behalf of the applicant team for the remote one in chase street versus want to say thank you for your time and review and recommendation of the approval. Um, I don't want to duplicate everything that was done and already said, um, you know, this was. Pretty straightforward for us, just a minimal FAR addition. I think looking for curb appeal too, everything's in the rear of that property. Everything is tree-lined. Of course, trees can come down, but it's not going to add anything of disvalue from any neighbor. All we're looking for here is just closing in on the rear porch and adding an additional bedroom upstairs. So I'm open for any conversation or questions.

Great, thank you. Any members of the commission have questions for the applicant? All right, seeing none, thank you for your presentation. Okay, we're going back to the commission for commissioner comments.

Comment, public comment.

excuse me I need to close the applicants time to speak and open public comment are there any members of the public present who would like to speak as to this agenda item seeing them close public comment I'll bring it back to the Commission for Commissioner comments comment this property well I used to live right next to this property

and given the analytics that were performed and the compliance for the most part with our code and the location of where it is and I know the Collins and I know that this is kind of back on the back of the property I'm supportive of the application great thank you any other comments Commissioner Barnett

Well, I accept the validity of the findings that were made in support of this application, so I will vote in favor of it.

Thank you. Any other comments? Yeah, I will say that the only development standard that is increasing in this case is site coverage going from 31% from 32%. And I think on balance, I can easily make the findings for an exception in this case. And with that, is there a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Barnett.

Aye.

Commissioner Dombach. Yes. Vice Chair Nugent. Aye. Chair Weyrich. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Congratulations on your application being approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It wouldn't be considered rude if you wanted to leave. You're welcome to stay. You're welcome. Yeah, just recently. Yep, my house. Okay. With that, we will close tonight's public hearing. And we will move on to items for discussion. Where's my... All right, item 5.1 is a study session to discuss amendments to an ordinance of Sonoma Municipal Code Title 18, signs and display advertising. Staff report.

Well, good evening, commissioners. Back again to talk about the sign ordinance. Kind of just recapping from where we were last time, there was some suggestions for edits regarding temporary signs. Spanners talked about electronic signs. And then just clarifying the language so that the requirements are in line with each other. So since then, those edits have been made. There was a draft that was provided to you guys as an attachment. And let's see. And so some of the updated language that we'll be talking about tonight also is going to be regarding the master sign program, the temporary signs, just overall general sign standards, which we weren't able to get to last time. Some of the exempt signs that are allowed, administrative review as a whole, the allowed sign types for each zoning district, and then real estate signage was also brought up.

uh... and so just to kind of go over if you don't mind commissioner bernard i have a question which is it's for the chair we were all sent this material in advance i read the whole thing has everybody have everybody read it or do we need to go through it line by line tonight well i'm not sure if that requires going through it line by line Ms. Gates?

So I think there's some specific questions that we still have. We don't need to go through what we did update. We can go just straight to the questions that are remaining in the ordinance and get those answered. It's actually not a public hearing tonight. It's just going to be items for discussion because we're still working on that ordinance, and then we'll bring forward that ordinance probably next month.

I think in the interest of concision.

And I do.

I'm sorry. As did I.

Today. OK. Yeah. So I was just going to go through and clarify some of the things that were added, some of the things that we went over last time just to just so that you are aware. So one of the questions that comes up involves the administrative sign review. So this is at the beginning of the ordinance itself. This is regarding what is required for permitting on these signs. Part of that was trying to determine whether there would be a max aggregate or max number of signs for each zone. It doesn't specify in the general standards, and I was trying to think about how to specify that. Currently, it would be based on the area, the max square footage for each type of sign. So in that regard, someone could have a wall sign and a post sign and a monument sign. and all these things that meet the max square footage, but we don't currently have with this ordinance a max number of signs or max aggregate. So I just wanted to clarify whether that's something that we would like to see, if we feel that the max square footage for each type of sign is enough to guide people's decision making on what kind of signage they would like and whether they're going to have more signage than necessary or not?

Are we going to discuss these items one by one as we go through it? Yes. Okay. Well, I would say I'm leaning towards a max aggregate. I think otherwise I'm just concerned that you end up with someone who goes sign crazy.

So aggregate sign, square footage, or total for a business, or aggregate in the sense of number of signs. So right now, administrative, it's two signs. And so that's more my question. I just want to be clear. It's aggregate square footage?

That was my interpretation. That was my interpretation. And that would be my sentiment as well.

So if that's the guidance, then I'll go ahead and I'll kind of consider what the max is.

Is there any idea in terms of... Different ideas about... Okay.

Okay. So I'll go through basically each of the max square footage for each type of sign and just consider a max or aggregate that makes the most sense for all signage. The next question that I had that came up... is whether the exemptions, as you've read, there are two, which is for changes to face or copy, and then normal repair maintenance, and whether there should be other exemptions considered for administrative permits. What was that first exemption? For changes to the face or copy of an existing sign from one tenant to another without changing the size of the sign or anything else about the nature of the sign.

So that would be a change of the wording? That's correct.

What about replacement? That's not technically maintenance, but does that fall under maintenance?

Like the physical replacement of... Is it for the purpose of... Do you mean in regard to making it the same? Like it would just be like for like?

I would... It's a question. I mean, if somebody wanted to... If it's not a maintenance issue, but somebody wanted to change the format, is that something that we would feel comfortable... It's not exactly like for like, but... but maybe it's the same aggregate, it's the same size.

Yeah, I mean, that would be considered, I mean, I think that's something that can be considered as an exemption as to whether, you know, changes to the style or, you know, the color and whatnot, that can be considered part of the exemption as another option. Yeah. Okay.

I like the use of style.

OK. So that was one question. One of the larger questions that comes up that I had was in regard to the sign program. Now, we talked about this a bit at the last hearing. And based on some recommendations from Bob Sanders, we talked about having it, and as well as the commission, we talked about having it as three or more tenants to trigger the sign program. One thing that I thought about was whether, with the sign program, if we should be allowing, since someone's going to have to go through this procedure of getting a use permit to have a sign program developed and having all the tenants adhere to the sign program, if there should be an allowance for an increased percentage overall to specifically monument signs and freestanding signs. or directory signs, because those are the typical signs you would see on a multi-unit property where you might see larger signs, so like Whole Foods or with, given like the Ross signage as well. It doesn't currently include allowance for a larger signage than what's allowed in the tables, and so that was something I was considering maybe to be included as part of the sign program.

So in what circumstance would somebody seek to increase the size of their monuments? Is it to add a name or out of business?

Let's say it's to have four businesses on there. And if the current signage, the current monument sign sign sizing is not going to be adequate to what they would like for all four of those businesses, then maybe having it 10% larger would actually be more helpful to being able to advertise all the businesses on that one side. Okay.

How would we cap that size? So let's say there's seven tenants and it's at 10% for each. Do we understand what other municipalities do around that?

I've seen in the past when I've looked at master sign programs just allowing a larger aggregate for the monument sign, like each sign on the monument. large sign or on the monument sign or on the post sign. But I've also just seen percentage increase overall to the monument sign itself. And then it's up to the tenants to decide or the owner to decide how large each sign can be on that monument sign.

So is your proposal just no matter how many

tenants it's a cap at 10% increase yeah because no matter what with the master sign program it's going to be three or more tenants so if we were to allow a cap a larger cap on monument signs both signs by overall by 10% or by 15% of whatever the Commission decides then each of those tenants would be able to have potential larger sizing on that sign

So many variables.

I mean it doesn't sound unreasonable that if like but if you give that a real-time example so if you have a sign that's four feet by three feet so we're talking about you know something four and a half feet by three and whatever three and a third as a ten percent increase so I mean thinking about that it doesn't it doesn't sound unreasonable to me I

can just provide an example of what that could be given what the current standards are

then maybe show what a 10 increase and versus like a 15 or something like that yeah i think i would have to i think the best way to do it be showing our existing math like i guess master sign program areas that we already have is whole foods and the other signage for ross and i can show a difference between that those monument signs versus a standard monument sign just for a single business yeah i mean that would be helpful just so that we get us i think

Probably I'm not speaking for all the commissioners here, but I wouldn't want to get a huge massing on the sign So I think we just want to mitigate that but allow it to be practical mr. Burnett Well, how has this ever come up?

So I don't know exactly what the height so in my world look what I'm thinking of is okay Yeah, we increased by 10% but it's not I

No, my question is has there been a request made by someone with a sign program to enlarge their signs?

I think we only have two currently. Sign programs?

We have lots of sign programs but two that have large signs which are at the shopping centers.

Yes, so you've got one at Is there even one at the marketplace where Whole Foods is? I don't recall. Yes. Okay. Where is that located? It is on West Napa. On West Napa? Okay, and it shows you how much impact it's had on me. I can't even recall it. And the other one, I assume, is Maxwell Village? That's correct. And where's that? That one's on Sonoma Highway. And it's right here on the highway. Yes, and it's obviously garnered enormous attention on my part. So I'm just wondering whether it's even worth the time to come up with this variable in the case of only having two potential entities who might even request such a change. I mean, taking both facilities, both developments as they are, the only way you could increase the needs of the signage would be to increase the number of tenants which means either subdividing an existing space to create two businesses where there was previously one, which I think is highly unlikely, or are just, that's the only reason you would do it. And I think they would have to be accompanied by a change in the structural arrangement of the actual center to accommodate a new business that would have to be represented on a sign. I don't think there's a high likelihood of either of them doing that.

So my understanding was that there's far more than two sign programs. There are two applications for modifications to the

No, there's no applications. There's just the potential for a entity with more than three businesses to ask for a larger monument sign because they had a fourth business or fifth business.

If I may, through the chair, real quick, just to clarify part of the reasoning that I've brought this to your attention is because to incentivize people who are on these properties to take part in the sign program that currently do not have an established sign program or aren't considered necessarily following it, One of the ways to incentivize people to create a sign program, to take part in a use permit to adopt a sign program on these properties, would be by allowing some type of allowance for maybe an increased monument sign, something to

Encourage their business growth and allow for better better Okay, so what an example of that be for example at 7th Street and Napa Street there is a bakery and a Number of other shops on the north side of the street they're all part of one building I think there's maybe four businesses located in it and would assume they do not at this point have a sign program okay so this would be to incentivize them to have a sign program in terms of us asking for tenants to apply for a use permit to create a sign program when they are applying for new signage But at the present time, I just want to understand the process we have at present. At this point, if one of the tenants, let's call it a for-tenant property, changed and went from a bakery to a shoe store, the shoe store under the present circumstance would apply for a sign permit. to change their sign. Just as an individual business, it wouldn't come through the center or it wouldn't be part of an aggregate sign program that has uniformity between the different businesses. Is that correct?

They would be, yeah, they would be applying for an individual business, a sign permit for their individual business.

Okay, and why would we want them to create a sign program in a situation like that? I mean, from my perspective, I kind of like the fact that these four businesses can create a unique identity of their own and not have to conform to a standard sign program that, you know, works well in a large, aggregate development of the size where Whole Foods is or Maxwell Village, but would I think begin to impose a sort of uniformity to smaller operations, smaller buildings that presently don't have a program like that at all.

I think that is what is up for consideration as to whether the master sign program should be considered in this case or not.

Okay.

Mr. Nolak.

Yeah, I have a question and a comment. I'm going to ask it more succinctly. What is the value to Sonoma of having a sign program? If you wanted to incentivize it, what are you trying to incentivize what's valuable to us?

Aesthetics and character for the area.

So basically, instead of people having signs across a building, you want a monument sign or another kind of type of sign along the road?

Just more uniformity between all the businesses in a location.

And the value to us is uniformity?

So I would say the value is also for the property owner too because we're creating something that then when the businesses come in, if you meet all these little parameters, you don't need to come for a use permit or you don't need to come for the sign permit anymore because we've already defined what the parameters are for each sign as they come in. And it doesn't necessarily mean that those, that master sign program has to say it's going to be, and I'm just going to use the word, the shopping center over here brown with white lettering and you know it has to be wood you know it doesn't necessarily mean all that it could be it needs a their wall sign is going to be this size window signs are going to be this size and we're going to have the monument sign because usually in those larger ones they will say okay you know, this door and this door are anchors so they get the larger sign and then smaller ones can purchase the ability to go in this and this is what that's going to look like. That's what the overall master sign.

I'm not finished.

And so with the one that he's talking about, it is like that in the sense of they have that one monument, but they all have individual signs above. And so there can be creativity still allowed. It's just setting the box. What is that parameters of what we're looking for in that box that may be different than what our just regular standard is?

Okay. I mean, from this conversation, I don't see that as tremendous value, personally. But what I do see as valuable is our effort to streamline the ministerial process. And if adding a 10% buffer streamlines that process so that it doesn't have to come in front of this designer review or this commission, I would be supportive. You know, I understand what you're saying, but again, some of the creativity is is what makes it interesting. So from my perspective, I would support it from streamlining a ministerial process so that they don't have to come forward. Yes, there may only be two, but we're trying to be forward-looking. So just in case something does happen, I'd rather see it be handled administratively.

Thank you. Vice Chair?

Two questions. Where Sonoma Market is located, do they have a monument sign?

I can't picture it.

They do?

Right at the corner. Right at the corner. It's diagonal.

And my other question is, around the plaza where we have those, they're kind of tall and thin, if you will, all the different panels of the different, like in the Mercado or down the El Paseo or the Wine Alley, where does that fall in in monuments?

So those would be freestanding directory signs.

Directory signs. Thank you.

Yeah.

well first of all I think the sign at Sonoma marketplace well you might call it a monument sign it actually is just a freestanding sign that is promoting the center itself I think it's a Sonoma Valley mark Center Sonoma Valley Center or something like that and it's large Perhaps we're using a nomenclature here that is conflating two kinds of signs. There's the sign at the Sonoma Market, which on the corner is large, but doesn't list any of the other businesses in that center. And so that's different than a sign which lists individual businesses on it. Now, are we using a different nomenclature, or are we calling them both monument signs?

So there's post signs and monument signs that are typically post signs and monument signs, which are typically used for front of businesses like that. So the monument sign, the one you're talking about for Sonoma Marketplace, that is a monument sign. The one that's for Whole Foods is a post sign.

A post sign. So a sign with multiple business listed on it is a post sign. There's, yes. And that's your definitions?

So there are post signs for multi-unit properties that may look, by definition, be similar to a directory sign. But by sizing, it's not the same thing.

Okay, so a post sign and a directory sign can essentially be virtually identical, but are being differentiated in some fashion by you.

Yes, because directory signs are typically going to be smaller signs that label where the location of the business is.

Okay, well this was a little unclear, so I'm glad we got the nomenclature clarified. I'm not in favor of uniformity. I think that while there may be an advantage to a business of not having to reapply, I think the standards, or come before this commission, I think the standards should be such that an administrative approval can take place as long as the applied for sign meets the regulatory standards. in terms of size and aggregate measurements and so forth. I think beyond that, there's no reason to impose, nor should I think honestly the city should encourage a uniformity of signage um it's up to the prop i think that's up to the property owner if they want to establish a sign program and should be just up to the property owner period and the same goes for monument signs i i think a monument sign would only be applied for by the property owner not the individual businesses an individual business isn't going to create a monument sign or a directory sign or a post sign, those are going to be the responsibility of the property owner himself or herself. So I think that's enough, and I think that while I respect and understand the notion of sustaining and protecting the aesthetics of the community, that the other provisions in the sign ordinance should be written to do that. I don't think a sign program... I think it may be worth considering a sign program for an entity of a specific scale. Three or four isn't enough for me to encourage a sign program. maybe it's eight or it's 10. I don't know what the number is. So it's perfectly appropriate in a place like Maxwell Village, but I can't see it being something I'd like to see in a widespread fashion in the community.

Thank you. Any other comments on that particular item? I will just join in that my opinion is not dissimilar from Commissioner Dombach and Commissioner Barnett and that in fact I like to encourage some individuality and creativity but I'm also in favor of the concept of a ministerial process and some cushion for going 10% beyond what is prescribed for an applicant who seeks to have a signed program or the tenants within it. I would be supportive of that just in the name of streamlining the process and maintaining efficiency. Any other thoughts on that? OK. Bob, do you have any thoughts on this particular point?

Hello.

Hi, Bob Sanders. Well, in all the cities, I've done a lot of sign programs. They kind of, I don't know, they came into regulation for all these big shopping centers that we've seen in all these other towns. We have a lot of character here, but we did the one for Old Bull Center. which was okay. And of course, Maxwell Village and the other center. But it seems like they're mostly, I mean, they can be over or under regulated. So I think the quantity of stores is somewhere in there. I was wondering, I saw that and I wondered, that doesn't apply to multiple family units because I saw that you can't have a monument sign without getting a use permit. So I think small apartments don't need sign programs. So I've seen some great sign programs and I've seen some mediocre ones. So somewhere maybe we can set some kind of criteria about that.

So if I can clarify, there is already an administrative review process for all of the sign types, including monument signs. There are some use permit requirements for residential zones. That's, I think, what Bob might be referring to, which is typical for residential zones, because you don't want to see monument signs popping up administratively in residential zones. For all other zones, there is administrative permit allowances. With the sign program at the next hearing before approval, what I can do is I can provide two choices. One, without it, without the sign program as a whole. The other choice will be with allowing an increased size for those types of signs specifically, so that when people, once a use permit has been sought afterwards, it's an administrative approval for signs that are of that larger size. So those will be the two choices that I can provide based on the comments that I've received so far.

Well, you prompted another question on my part. On Fifth Street East, there is a development, I think it was done in the late 80s or 90s, called East Side Estates. Eastside Estates has a sign at the entry on Fifth Street which is affixed to a stone or brick wall that's been built, and that's a residential area. I'm not sure if Armstrong Estates has a monument sign. It may have once, but yeah, when things were for sale. So Eastside Estates is the only one I can think of that has a sign. Esther Madera. Esther Madera also has a very large identity on a fence. Now, would those kinds of signs going forward be prohibited?

Oftentimes those signs are usually approved with the use permit for multifamily residential projects.

So they wouldn't necessarily be prohibited Yeah, and there are also on First Street First Street West there are some larger apartment complexes that also have large signs that are adjacent to the right-of-way and

And as an addition to this ordinance, variances have been allowed to allow people that want to have a larger sign to bring something forward to the commission. with that request, which would be part of anyone looking for a sign on a residential property like that. I think that makes sense.

I just had a – I have – I think they're multi-tenant monument signs is what we've called them. I have – I don't know the term post sign other than a post and a hanging sign, which is more of a smaller type of thing, and I didn't see a definition in the new book. I think it's, there's several tenants on Maxwell, there's a couple main tenants on Maxwell Village and the Sonoma Market sign, there's some little, the bank I think has it. So that's something to consider, how to allow a few tenants and the major name of the center.

Thank you Bill. Any other thoughts from the Commission? Jacob, do you feel like you might have some direction in that?

In regard to Master Sign Program, absolutely. Okay, thank you. So yeah, moving forward, the next question that I would pose is whether a temporary... So as we all know, we've approved multiple signs on the plaza and around the plaza. All throughout the city, we've been approving different signs. Many times what we see is that wall signs, window signs come forward for permits. They get approved. They get reviewed. And oftentimes a lot of these businesses will open up and then an A-frame sign will pop up. Now a lot of times those A-frame signs have not been reviewed by us. We haven't had a chance to consider whether it does meet the standards for exempting the A-frame or not. And we know that a lot of businesses like to have these A-frame signs. They like to have these small little post signs in front of their businesses. And with the ordinance that's currently in front of you, there is a requirement for a temporary sign permit, which would include A-frames and those small post signs. Now, because there has not been much interest in providing details on that, and we haven't reviewed them, This ordinance will provide specific standards for what is allowed for A-frames and post signs. But because of the fact that I'm not seeing very many permits come forward or them being considered as part of these permits, I wanted to pose the question of whether we even want to have a temporary sign permit be required or not, or if it should just be based on whatever the sign standards are for those types of signs, and if they want to increase the size of their A-frame or post sign, they can request a variance through a use permit.

Yeah, I see these signs around a lot, and I understand their value, and it sounds like they're not really imposing any kind of safety threat so I think it's reasonable to have a standard as long as we inform everyone of the standard and so my question for staff is if we have this standard this baseline standard how how do we let businesses know and inform them because I'm I'm guessing most of them don't even realize not in support of a temporary permit because I think a lot of people don't even realize so but I am I think it's reasonable to kind of create a size and it's because if they want a large one that would be something I think we would want to to review materials in which these a frames are manufactured you're gonna run the gamut from aesthetics to

safety to, anyway, it might be something to consider.

Commissioner Burnett. Well, I have never liked A-frame signs. And so I will confess that for 35 years I've been arguing against A-frame. I think that the only circumstance in which an A-frame sign can be justified is for a business which does not have street frontage or sidewalk frontage. For example, in the Mercado, where you've got businesses on both sides running down the alley and do not have street frontage, I think that there is the potential value in an A-frame sign for them. But for somebody with street frontage on the plaza, I see absolutely no reason why there should be an A-frame sign allowed. So that's my position. We certainly have to have size provisions for A-frame signs. and certain safety requirements. They should be built of the materials so the wind doesn't blow them down and toss them around on the street. And they have to be, I think, there has to be conditions of their removal at the closure of the day of the business. There ought to be hours in which they're allowed. And lastly, it prompts an interesting question for me. An A-frame sign used to be called a sandwich board. And you'd have someone who was paid to walk around with wearing a sandwich board. Now, I don't expect, unless the economy completely falls through the toilet, that people will be paid to walk around with a sandwich board. But that notwithstanding, what if a business wanted to do that? which is to say a walk-around sign. It's currently prohibited. Okay, thank you. So that's my position on the A-frames. I see no reason to – I think we have to have some regulations, but they ought to apply to businesses that need promotion because they are otherwise hidden from foot traffic that walks by. Commissioner Novak, question.

I have a question. What about real estate sandwich boards?

So that's going to be – I'll bring that up in a separate comment.

And I think they're protected. Well, let's hear the conversation, because I don't know what that means, protected.

Any other thoughts specific to A-frames for retail?

Not too much to add, and apologies for being late tonight. I think I would associate my comments with Commissioner Dombach. I appreciate Commissioner Barnett's thinking on this, but I see the A-frames everywhere, and I do think... I'm more inclined to provide some standards and support some standardization of what those should look like, but I'm not sure I would support limiting that to businesses that don't have immediate visibility just simply because I see them used to promote a lot of different business activities. And I just think I want to do whatever I can to encourage businesses and encourage traffic into those businesses. And so I would be more inclined to associate my comments with Commissioner Dombach in terms of direction.

Any other thoughts on that? I will add that I would not be in favor of outlawing a-frame signs but there should be some parameters around which they are approved or allowed with that just top of mind is the concept of maybe not a it's not a permanent fixture it relates to some specific function or some specific promotion or specific event but i think there's a happy medium in there i understand that there's a value especially for businesses that don't have um plaza frontage but they can also contribute to clutter and their rest can be aesthetically unpleasing and trip hazards and we have a very aesthetically pleasing historic city center and to clutter it up with various A-frame signs of, you know, with different construction materials, I think detracts from what we have. But I don't, I would not be in favor of outlawing them altogether. I think the details. Any other thoughts on that? So you got a gamut.

OK. Yeah, so I think in terms of requirements on the A-frames itself, I know Commissioner Willers had already discussed the materials, which I haven't included it yet, which I was going to after tonight's discussion, is for metal and wood only. That was what was considered last time. It sounds like when it comes to the temporary sign permit requirement, I'm getting the read that that shouldn't be a requirement. But in terms of Chair Weirich and Commissioner Barnett's comments, there's some other things to consider in regard to when those are in use or if they're in use. So I don't know if we had a straw poll, maybe, or something.

that sort I'd be helpful to my fellow commissioners I just envisioned a plaza where everyone has decided to put out an a friend because everyone is entitled to and the effect that could have you know I hear you that's like the extreme situation but we've but we haven't seen that yet and so I I would rather have a situation where we tell people where they can put the signs

So that it's not a safety issue. I think it gets a little complex when you define what you can put on the sign so I Mean what would that look like a sale a happy hour? You know, I if you want to do that or non fronting I think if you want to do that and I was a savvy Business owner I would just put sale and then I would put it up, you know, so I think if you want to do that there are ways that people can Adapt to that, but I don't I don't know that I don't personally think it's tremendously helpful And I don't want to complicate the process by doing that and that's what's my point Neither do I and I don't want to dictate what copy should appear on someone's a frame sign

Well, let me just throw in a few complications. We have mostly diagonal parking all around the plaza. And I have been in the circumstance where I have parked and in the space directly in front of the space between my car and the car adjacent to me is an A-frame sign. And it's an obstruction. And I don't want to be obstructed from the sidewalk. And I don't want to have to navigate my way around something with legs that I can trip over. And I don't want to see the city get sued because somebody trips over a sign and breaks their patella. I mean, these are real world complications. Nor do I want to see an A-frame sign saying totally nude candles. I mean, you can get creative and crazy, but you can also get offensive and you end up with what I would consider to be promotional litter. And so I don't know what people are going to put on their signs. And I don't know how big the lettering is going to be. And I don't know what colors they can be. I mean, are we prohibiting? particular colors on A-frames. Not that I've seen yet in the proposed regulations. In our sign regulations, you can't use day glow, you can't use fluorescent, you can't do this, you can't do that. Now all of a sudden we say, you know, whatever you want to do on an A-frame, have fun. So, you know, I think that we're opening a can of worms here. I think it needs more careful thought. And if we're going to try to protect the aesthetics of a historic resource that I think could use a lot of visual improvement in many ways above and beyond what's already happened. I mean, there was a discussion a number of years ago that Kelso brought up, Kelso Barnett brought up about creating a Sonoma Plaza Conservancy. I mean, you go to other communities and they've got flower pots with flowers hanging from poles, flowering plants. I mean, there's all kinds of ways communities are working to keep their shopping environment looking welcome and pleasant and vibrant. And the city of Sonoma doesn't do any of that. I mean, the closest we get is banners on poles for big events.

Can I call the order that we can focus on kind of what we're trying to do for the staff here?

Well, what I'm trying to do is make the argument that A-frames are not to me a slam dunk, and I think we need much tighter regulation. That's what I'm trying to do for staff.

Okay. So to clarify, and for the sake of staff's takeaway from this conversation, would it be helpful to have a straw poll? No. Okay.

I think we probably have enough.

Okay.

And there are regulations surrounded around what size A-frames are. They're not allowed to be illuminated and whatnot. So there's standards that are in place for that. But I think we have enough for... Understanding temporary signs and how to address those in a frames and more will be discussed before making a decision on it The next question that has come up and has been brought up by Bob Sanders as well as myself is is regarding intersections and site visibility, which you can see on the screen. Currently, it does not show a definition for it because we don't have a definition for site visibility. But with the current standards, it states that there needs to be at least six feet of distance between nearest roadway or public pedestrian sidewalk or walkway. which whatever one is closer. And I wanted to bring this up to just consider if, based on signage from the time that you've all been in Sonoma, whether the signage seems to have come too close to those intersections and if there needs to be more visibility, if we should consider more distance, maybe eight feet. I know Bob Sanders has brought up having monuments at three feet instead of six feet, so having them closer. Same with post signs and other signs. So there's been differing opinions on whether the sign should be closer to intersections or further. We just don't have an established site visibility triangle or requirement for that. And so I'm trying to kind of come up with, do we keep the standard at six feet, or do we feel that it should change?

Thank you. I would like to hear from Bob Sanders first on this.

So Wendy and I did develop a A-frame criteria that is in the code somewhere, and they used to take money for the permits for it. That might help you. We've got more signs that are close to the property. When it showed up as eight feet setback, well, we have about... 80 or 90% of the signs are one, two, or three feet back from the property line. That's the way our community has kind of dealt with it. But through the commercial universe, five feet is normally a setback standard. Sometimes we've gotten into situations where we'd have liked to have a two-foot setback to have a double-sided sign. And it would have been okay, but it didn't work out. There's one that you did for the tire guy that's one foot. So, I mean, we've got to have a setback just so the bicycle or pedestrian doesn't run into it. The visibility triangle, those are all over the place, but those are mostly on corners where it's like the Sonoma Market sign. I don't know what the visibility triangle and how it works there, but somebody did that on the diagonal side. but I had suggested three feet because Mostly what we have is three feet, but five could be okay It's six now in the code eights what you know So it's where it's applied and and when we have a bunch of non-conforming Monument signs if they're less than five feet.

I was curious about that Well, I'm assuming that for example if there is a monument sign adjacent to the driveway for parking for commercial use that the visibility triangle so-called would apply so that when one is pulling out of that driveway to go back into the major thoroughfare that one's view of the oncoming traffic is not obscured by the sign. I assume that's the principle that we're working with here. And so I would also assume that there must be, and perhaps I'm wrong, a standard which is applied by what i refer to a traffic safety experts as to what is an acceptable level of visual obstruction in the egress or or entry or exit of a driveway adjacent to a major thoroughfare is there not um

No, there's actually, we do not. That's that site visibility triangle. Most jurisdictions have it. So right now what's being proposed for the sign is that it could be in the commercial zone six feet tall, which is consistent with what we have today. The way that it's written in our current code, it says six feet, but it's not clear. Is it six feet from the property line? Is it six feet from back of curb? Is it six feet from the sidewalk? What is the six feet in relation to? So we're trying to clean that up. We have talked about doing the site visibility triangle regardless because it gets very confusing in our residential area as well with like the height of fences and being able to back out of your driveway when you have a hedge next to you that's 10 feet tall. Those types of things. So I think that when we're saying how far back it is, is really trying to get at a site visibility issue and making sure that we're not hitting pedestrians as we come out of driveways and things like that. But also what's that experience as you drive down the street? So I think that's where Jacob was asking the question of when you have seen monument signs, you see them in all different distances all around. And that's what Bob said as well is there's just, it just changes where you are. And so that's where the question is coming in is, you know, if you, we can provide you a little bit more of what that looks like as an example, like comparing, I think when we did the one that Bob's talking about, when we did the tire, the tire already existed there. And to be honest, I did work with them and made sure like we lifted it up so that you could see underneath and Like I really wanted to make sure that visibility, but we use the same post and that's where we were running into, well, it already existed. Um, but if you looked, and then I showed you guys signs up and down the street when we were talking about it, do we want them to move it back when we have such variation? Um, so it is a kind of a call. We will work on a site visibility because we do not want to impact that site and that's the most important aspect of it we don't want to hit pedestrians and we don't want to hit other cars as we go out of the street so we'll work on the site visibility triangle i think we're really just wanting to know how far back do you want these signs at this point do you want them farther back or do you want them closer to the sidewalk well i would want them farther back i what i heard tonight was that there seems to be a range

And so maybe an idea is to have a range from like three feet to five feet or something. Because if we push it further back, does that mean the folks that already have signs would have to push those back?

Okay. Any other thoughts on that?

So remember, any signs changes that we make, it just means sometimes that those signs will be existing nonconforming. we are still allowing change of copy. So, I mean, if you've ever seen some of our signs in town are really, you know, we've kind of got the older tall signs and then we have newer signs that are going to be like the Chevron is nice and low because that, that complies with our new monument sign heights and things. And then we used to have pole signs that got us a big, maybe a shell sign. I can't remember if our shell's up high or not, but I think you're understand what I'm saying, we can change the copy within it, but if we take down that whole system, then yes, what goes in to replace it would comply with what's new.

Okay. Sure.

So having said that, I think I would be more inclined to support having it further back. I was concerned about Bob's comments that there's a lot of variation, but if we're simply grandfathering an existing signage until such time as there's a new request, I would support further back then and have it not so much be arranged, but really try to promote that consistency. And then as it relates to what that setback should look like, I don't know. It sounds like there's a lot of different examples out there. And since there's no standard safety protocol or parameters, again, I think further back the better. I don't know if six feet, it seems awfully far, but I would be, again, inclined to support that in lieu of something closer to the sidewalk.

May I ask a clarifying question? So if, just to follow on that, if we were pushing them back to like six feet and it was from the curb, then that would take into consideration a sidewalk, is that? correct?

That is correct.

Sidewalks are two feet. Is that what they are?

How wide they are? Yeah.

They're typically about seven feet. Here they're smaller. It depends on what street you're on. Napa is going to be Napa Street, West Napa Street is going to be about three and a half to four. It's a skinnier sidewalk versus like Broadway. We have sections of Broadway that are larger, more like Five plus feet. And so that's where a lot of the times the question comes up because we have what our public right-of-way varies. And that's why sometimes you see parcel lines that may look like they're right here, but the neighboring parcel line may actually be here because we haven't taken right-of-way yet. So that's where I was going with it's easier to measure from back of existing curbs. then it's going to be from a parcel line that's kind of imaginary in space. It's real, but here.

That's what was the nature of my question. I wanted to ensure that there was that right-of-way space, and so it sounds like if we started from the curb back, we would compensate for the variation in size. I'm supportive of that.

As am I. Sorry, just to clarify, it's from back curb and not from the nearest walkway?

We want to ensure the sidewalk right-of-way.

Yes, this would, at least my understanding is this would assume that under no conditions could a monument sign be constructed in the curb right-of-way. In other words, the sidewalk right of way. So in some cases, the six feet will be beyond the edges of the sidewalk in terms of the property. And in some cases, there may be someone who would have to have a monument sign, like on Broadway, which is all the way past at the edge of the sidewalk, which could be as wide as eight or ten feet, however it is. Okay. Okay, great.

Moving on. Great. So the next question that has come up and was brought up by Bob Sanders as well was in regard to these prohibited sign types. One of the prohibited sign types is this cabinet sign. Now, I have an example of cabinet signs, just general cabinet signs that would be prohibited. These are the typical cabinet signs you may see for businesses. Now what's been proposed by Bob Sanders is allowing an opaque push-through cabinet sign with lighting or just without lighting. that maybe looks a little bit better than that, so which maybe something like this would allow push-through letters. It's still considered a cabinet sign. And so I just wanted to bring it up and just consider whether I should make it clear or clarify somewhere that cabinet signs, maybe these cabinet signs here are prohibited, although cabinet signs with push-through letters of this sort may be allowed.

How would you linguistically distinguish between the two?

That is something I would have to figure out. Push through letters, right?

Not going to be easy.

Push through letters. Well, okay. That's how it's been described to me by Bob Sanders.

So these are also backlit. So there's a difference. So the cabinet itself is the frame in which it's sitting on is that type, and then it looks like it's a backlit situation lit. An example of an existing cabinet that we have is that if you go up one, they have these opaque covers within. So Wells Fargo is an example of this. And so we worked with them to make sure that it was solid in the red and so that you weren't getting a red glow and the white letters. I think that's what we're working on with these cabinets, trying not to make sure the whole sign is just this one big white source.

So, yeah, everybody wants to get rid of old, bright cabinet signs. They're, you know, passe. But the industry has – we did the signs for Sonoma Fit, and the cabinet had these rounded ends that we did, and they were – the face is routed out, and then the letters are pushed through. Sometimes they just put a piece of acrylic – behind the routing and there's no push through, which is okay. The push through is more attractive and cooler to do. But I don't know how, I would say the key is to have an opaque background that lets no light in other than the letters. Only the letters or logos can be illuminated through the opaque background. I don't know, some language like that.

Yeah, I think that what I'm seeing here incorporates language like that. And also what I'm seeing is it almost blends into the existing background of the building. So language around minimizing the light

You see this more in commercial buildings, and I don't see these necessarily cabinet on the plaza. I mean, there's some older signs that are like that. We want to set a nice, I mean, there's future commercial development, and so I think these things are normally put in a sign program when you have a larger shopping center. They use them a lot.

Thanks, Bob.

So one of the next questions that has come up is regarding measuring the signs. So there's these irregular shape signs. Now it's been brought up by Bob Sanders as well. In terms of the two-faced signs, you'll see the sign area, how it's calculated. You calculate both the sign area for the face on the first, the face A and face B for both of those two face signs. But as soon as you get to the three face sign and the four face sign, you divide the total area by two. So it kind of reduces the overall square footage of the sign area when you have more sides to the sign. Now, I just wanted to clarify whether that's something we want. or if we don't want to reduce the overall square footage just due to more faces on a sign.

And what's the logic behind dividing it by two? I'm not sure.

This is how the code was written when I received it before making edits. So you can't see any more than half of it at one time? I would assume that that is the case, is that you're only seeing one or two sides maybe at a time. for all of these four types is there an aggregate limit to the size that would be what we talked about earlier would become the aggregate I mean the aggregate limit would be if this was I'm trying to think of what type of sign I mean a post sign I guess I would see it's like a three-sided sign someone can make a three-sided sign with a post or do a monument that is a square monument sign. Honestly, I just haven't seen these types of signs, so I don't really have a good example.

But if we didn't divide by two, what would be the implication? That's where I'm trying to go.

like if it would just be five by five yeah it would just be whatever the maximum aggregate is for let's say a post sign if the maximum square footage is 24 square feet then even if they did three sides sides on it they wouldn't be able to reduce it down to meet the 24 square foot i mean i think the aggregate would take care of it i mean when you look at the

The first three examples on top, if you just close the back of those, it doesn't, you know, I don't see it being profoundly different if there's a limit on the aggregate. Personally, doing them, like looking at the math.

Okay. I had a question. Are we...

Are we just counting one side? So for a double-faced sign, we're just, if it's 32 square feet, it's just, you can have the second, you're not getting penalized.

It would be the first side plus the second side would be your total sign square feet.

See, that's where, well, normally... it's fair to just have you read one side at a time so it's um 32 square feet and you can have a double-faced sign without a penalty it's the old code was a big terrible uh formula to get rid of 75 and all this so i don't see anything wrong with whatever you're allowing that they get on a double-faced sign they should get 32 or 24 on one side it's it's it's not that big a sign actually in the environment so a four by eight sign is 32 square feet or so is is it penalizing the double-faced sign and you know based on what you're requesting bob yes yeah yeah i would just make it at least most everybody does double-faced signs and i wouldn't count the second side in the square footage yeah

To me, that makes sense. It's not taking out, it's not, the massing is no different than as if it were copy on one side of the sign. Am I right? You're only getting two views.

Right. And a double-faced sign would be, would be because it's easier to read when it's perpendicular to the flow of traffic. either side as opposed to a sign that is parallel to the roadway where your visibility is is best as you pass it as opposed to approach it is that the theory so going back to the Sonoma market sign that's on the corner

Let's say that that's, I don't know what it is, 20 square feet plus. So that would be a one face, right? 20 square feet. So then that's what, or it's not devil's advocate, but it's just another person. So then I'm saying, oh, I can put a sign on the back of that. And then that's technically under this measurement would be another 20 square feet for a total of 40 square feet of quote unquote advertising. Or you say, if you want both sides, I need you to reduce to 10 on this side and then 10 on the other side for a total of 20. So I can either be bigger on one in one way, but if I do the same on both sides, I can be smaller and get both sides. That's the difference. And that's what this is measuring is saying, I can be 20 square feet and do one side, Or I can do 10 and 10 and then... Yeah, that's what I meant by the aggregate.

Like if we set whatever the max is, then that's the max.

So who cares how many sides you are? Because you're, with this type of sign, you're allowed 20 square feet. So however many sides you want to put on it to create it. So what Bob is saying is don't count it. If it's already on one, then it doesn't count on the other.

On a double-faced sign.

Yeah, it doesn't count on the other. Yeah, that makes sense.

That's mostly what we manufacture and build, and they're useful at the perpendicular. And they're really not that big in the environment from the distance.

I just wanted to make sure they understood the difference of what we were saying.

If it's V-shaped, actually it's a little easier to see. I don't see penalizing a not too big of a V, but a small V. It's okay. And not penalize the second sign. I don't see any point in that.

Yeah, it's really the massing. So having one sign isn't increasing your massing. You're just doing something on both sides.

That's right. We just wanted to make sure. So that's the top row. So on the bottom row, when we're saying ABC, ABCD, that one we're saying don't divide by two. We're saying just whatever that max is that's allowed. Because it's massive. So if it were 20, then it would be... Divided by three faces or four faces. Okay.

So we... We're eliminating the division by two? That's what it sounds like. That's what it sounds like to me, too.

And then the two-face, we're getting rid of A plus B. We're just saying one side.

Yeah. Yeah, the calculations on this pretty much is, yeah, trying to figure out whether we're eliminating some of these calculations or maintaining what it's stating on this image because, as we just discussed, yeah, it kind of limits in some way.

Thank you.

OK, so the next item, we're getting close to getting through everything like we wanted to last time. OK, so the next item, and I know that there was discussion from the lighting ordinance ad hoc from what I understand. So there's some of those items that have been discussed there will be incorporated in this and have kind of already been. I kind of double checked to see what kind of characteristics would be similar in regard to downward lighting and shielded lighting, making sure that things don't spill over to other properties and whatnot. One of the questions that comes up with this, and there's been different decisions at different hearings for lighting on signs. And I wanted to just clarify, is the aim for lit signage to have the signage turned off when the store is closed or have it dimmed Or let's just go with those. Is it to be dimmed or is it to be turned off at closing? Because on the plaza, I know with the Bank of America signage, we requested that it was dimmed. And it's allowed to be on 24-7, but that it's dimmed. With Ross signage, it was required to be turned off. So I'm just trying to get some clarity as to what the goal is here as to whether we wanted to see lit signage turned off at a certain time or if we want to see that it's just dimmed at a certain time.

Well, I'm a little confused by, for example, the language under C. Why would an externally illuminated sign be externally illuminated during the daytime? Are there any that are where the lights are on during the day?

I'm not... Yeah, no, I know. I'm not aware of any specifically, but in terms of if someone is going to have lighting on, that this would cover

concerns over having it reduced once it is done well you need to you need to the the dimming level has to be in reference to something so what you've used here as that reference point is the full brightness of it during the day but but the other issue here is this risk of the word dusk is dusk before sundown or after sundown or at sundown, it's not precise enough. So if you used a technical term like sunset, which is a point in time which can be verified each day, then that would at least be more specific. Dusk to me is a little too subjective. other than that certainly the decrease in the brightness and I wouldn't use the word daytime I would use 30% of the full illumination after sundown or whatever and this is for specifically for the external yes for the external yeah I have a question

comment too I mean I like that language that clarifies it more that's 30% of where the bulb is right and linking it to sunset or an hour before sunset or whatever you decide with regard to turning off I know we've had different conversations but my recollection is that from for the most part we wanted signs to be turned off after closing and but I know that the Bank of America was a That was a sign that was being lit like all the time And there were other considerations so If it's not after closing there probably should be some period of time midnight You know a few out that we probably would want most of the lights out anyway part of the dark sky ordinance

So typically what I've seen in many other jurisdictions as well is that you would typically state that the signage is turned off at store close or at 10 p.m., whichever occurs last.

And for instance, I don't mind the 10 p.m. because the Sebastiani is lit. I mean, there is some, even though the town rolls up, there may be some activity, and mostly we close things at 10, so that seems reasonable to me.

Other thoughts? I would be supportive of that language that you just indicated.

If you don't mind, Mr. Chair. And I recall one of the last conversations we had, and it was illuminated lighting on a new wine tasting facility. And we did ask that it be turned off after closure. And I actually have thought about that since, because I think they closed at 5. So the whole point of having the lighting is to allow them to advertise after hours. So my assumption is if we were to approve this, that standard would apply to everybody or would, once that was passed? Because I like the 10 p.m. I like the 10 p.m. and I like the dimmed. I like where we're going and I think that's...

So if we wanted to apply it to everybody, there is something that we could do around that, and it's usually a compliance request, and you give a certain period of time for compliance around that. Some people already have it in their conditions of approval. It's something that we could work on. It would need enforcement around. Obviously right now, sun's setting at like 830, so not really applicable. But in the wintertime, it fits perfectly. pretty dark pretty fast I feel like I'm leaving work and it's dark and so that that's kind of where we have to just think about that's where that sunset time kind of comes in and I think one of the things that I will you know between now and when we have the next one is if you guys are up and around at 930 10 o'clock at night yeah, I know, I'm not either, is to drive around, drive around town on the commercial corridors, because that's really what's most affected by this. We're going to work on the residential side of things with the night sky ordinance, but just drive around, see what you're seeing, and then what that value is to, oh, okay, if we turn it off, this is what

Yeah, I do drive around and I walk around the plaza and it's pleasing I mean, I don't think there's anything egregious especially if we're kind of putting opacities around certain kinds of signs and it also gives a vibrancy for the town but So I don't I don't mind it and again the 10 o'clock thing seems like you're getting the best of both worlds You're getting that vibrancy during the time when there's maybe activity, but then everyone's going to bed anyway, so I

Okay. Thank you. So as for the illumination section, after the conversations we had last time, I added the multicolor LED and electronic message signs portion here.

Thank you.

Specifying that they're only allowed in the commercial and mixed-use zones, except within the Plaza Retail Overlay District, so... wouldn't have them in Plaza, those open signs and things like that. And that they would be included in the total area for window signs. And that it's not to exceed two square feet. Now, I mean, that's, I think, the industry standard for most of those multicolor LED signs. And that's why I put that. But I don't know if there's a suggestion that maybe Bob Sanders would be able to speak on.

I'm sorry, so give me an example when you're doing multi-color.

It's like the open signs that are multi-color LEDs that are hanging in windows, things like that.

So remember the old Blaze sign? That's a little bigger. That'll be a bigger one. But that was an electronic message sign that was multi-colored LED. Blaze? This is the workout place. They had this message thing in the window that would go across the screen.

Well, two by two is pretty limiting. Maybe two by one. You know?

Even more limiting.

I don't know. So tell me, so is it in the window that it would have a message?

That is correct.

Yeah. I don't know. I don't know personally how I feel about those, but I have to think about that.

I tried to look up industry standards for them. You know, they come in all kinds of sizes, so. All right. I'll reserve comment. Is there anybody else?

I'm okay with two by two because I know exactly what Simon's talking about. And if you have two feet by two feet.

So that would be four square feet?

Yeah.

Okay.

But because if you have this stuff moving across, I mean, I think we want to limit that kind of stimulation. Yeah. And the open signs are often above the door, and they're like red, white, and blue, and they say open. I mean, they're not too disparaging, but they're also not very big. So it's like a reasonable compromise.

Okay. Any other thoughts on that? I am personally of the mind that those are highly offensive, but that might just be a very subjective thing VALUE STATEMENT, SO I'LL DEFER.

WELL, IT MAY BE A SUBJECTIVE VALUE STATEMENT, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. THANK YOU. I WOULD PUT IT IN THE CATEGORY OF TRASHY.

I DON'T DISAGREE, YEAH.

Okay, so now we're kind of just getting to the general sign standards at this point. And one of the things that we talked about was creating specific standards for the historic plaza or the plaza retail overlay district. Now me coming up with those sizings that should be required specifically for that district. is, I guess, a little difficult for me to determine, because when I walk the plaza, there's a lot of different sizes. And there's a lot of different styles and whatnot, so it's hard to kind of get a grasp of which ones of those wouldn't meet these standards that have been created, and which ones would. But based on having looked at them, and what the standards that we've created for wall signs, window signs, Projecting signs, I'm just going to show you real quick a table that I drafted for the historic overlay district. You know what, I don't think I have it in here. But you can see here the allowed sign types by zoning district. I added a historic overlay district section here where it says the slash P here for what types of signs would be allowed. The ones that I did not include in here was the building mounted directional signs for the historic overlay, just because in the plaza you don't really need the directionals, I don't believe, as much as you would at properties outside of the plaza or outside of the historic district. The other thing is not allowing, obviously, the service canopy and then the freestanding directionals or the monuments or the post signs. Now, those are typically allowed in all of the commercial zones, but for historic, I was specifically going to state that those would not be allowed, post signs and monument signs and the freestanding directional and then the building mountain directional. Historic. Historic.

well presently on the plaza there are signs that I would refer to as either a post or a monument sign and they list various businesses that's a directory and you're calling that a directory sign that's correct And it's called a directory sign. It doesn't tell you where something is. It just has a listing of the business. Does it not? I mean, it doesn't say two blocks east or two blocks west.

I mean, directories sometimes will have the address included. These zones in the plaza may not.

Not that I recall. I mean, to me, they look like monument signs that are listing the businesses in the area. They just don't happen to be in front of a shopping center. They're various corners of the plaza no I'm thinking of like at the corner of Broadway and and Napa Street there's a sign yeah so there's so what we're talking about our put those up

So that's the difference. So that's where I was going with there's the signs that we're talking about here that Jacob is specifically calling attention to are ones that would be put up for private businesses and or multi-tenant. So the Mercado or, you know, we have other ones that have directional or directory signage. Sorry, I'm going to say directory, not directional. directory sign on their wall to say, here's all the businesses that are within this area. So like in Mercado, when you walk right into that main entrance, you look to the right, and it lists all the businesses and where they are.

But these signs that the cities put up, how does a business get included in that? The chamber.

It's with the chamber.

Well, no, there's a real reason for it. So Lori Decker and I, I did all these signs. So anyway, they're made, and sometimes this rule is broken, but they're made to go down the side streets and help people find all the other shops, the Red Grape or, you know, first all the little shops on Napa to the left by Maya, all those shops. Those corner signs are helping you

help people that are not directly on the plaza but that's what the concept was right but those are city signs um we're considering them city signs um like a city wayfinding sign program has nothing to do with this so i wouldn't worry about that specific sign type because that is completely different and it's city slash chamber ran mostly chamber but When we're talking about the signs that are on the buildings, next to the buildings, those are the ones that we're really talking around the plaza. That's why we're saying no monument signs because we really don't want anything within our sidewalks, right? I think we're really focusing on the plaza itself. Our historical overlay is quite large and we have a lot of monument signs actually in the Broadway corridor already in front of our historic building. There's kind of that aspect of it for monument, but I think we're really focusing more on the plaza itself.

I think the only monument I can think about is the Mercado, because the other courtyard by Chico's or whatever, the one down there has a wall sign.

Yeah, that's where I was saying it's mostly the plaza that doesn't have them. Broadway is our historic overlay as well and is a historic district, but it has a lot of monument signs.

So I'm actually very confused by this table. So just so I understand what you're talking about. So when we look at freestanding signs, directional sign freestanding, you have dots where you said was the historic, so that means they are allowed.

So, yeah, so dots would mean it's permitted. I actually, and like I misspoke, as Director Gates has mentioned, this is meant to be the Plaza Retail Overlay District, so it would be prod, not H. Okay.

Okay.

So that's where there's a mistake there. But the line means it's not permitted. The dot means it would be permitted. UP means that there's a use permit required.

But you said there's a directional sign and a directory sign. Yes. And the directory sign freestanding is allowed.

Yes. I have that currently as a lot. I'm just confirming whether this list of permitted and not permitted signage in the Plaza Retail Overlay District, if it should be maintained as it is or if there should be signs in here that should be not permitted or be made to be permitted.

So you're saying with that directory sign freestanding that it can be freestanding in the pedestrian walking area?

well is that right standards for obstruction yes and i think the reason why when we talked about it that it was included is why am i forgetting for business yes it's the um not the mercado go around go on napa um melissa redmond's the one by the shoes the courtyard yeah the courtyards have free standing directory signs as you enter their the court, basically the courtyards, there are freestanding directory signs that you see there.

You mean Sonoma Court Shops?

Court Shops, thank you. So those exist. They have a sign program. So they're doing a freestanding directory sign as you enter the courtyards. They also have a directory sign on the wall that tells you where each business is. So that is an example of where you see all of it within the plaza because it that case it makes sense to direct people right down those alleys into that courtyard area.

Remind me what a projecting sign is. Something that hangs off the wall perpendicular to the walkway.

And so a directional sign is not allowed but what is a directional sign? Are the signs the chamber built and installed, are those directional signs?

Think about like an entry sign or exit sign for when you're driving out of a parkway or out of a parking lot from a bank and it tells you the exit's this way. That would be a directional sign.

That would be a directional sign.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question. The Mercado and the courtyard, those are on the sidewalk. They're in the right-of-way. So that's interesting.

It's not on their property. So if someone wanted to do it on their property, this would allow it. That's what this is saying.

Right, but it wouldn't allow a repeat of the Mercado sign in the middle of the...

It's prohibited to put it in any public right-of-way, to put any sign. Any thoughts about this table?

Well, if we only focus on the dash H, I think that seems reasonable. Right. And we're talking about on the property of the business owner, not city or chamber manifested signs.

Right. I would tend to agree with that. Okay. So as part of that question, or as part of this discussion, when it comes to what I talked about earlier, walking the plaza and just trying to determine what kind of sizing do we typically see there, and if there should be more restriction on sizing just to make it more visibly pleasing. Is that something we want to consider? It's something we talked about at the last hearing, and I just wanted to reconfirm whether there should be specified standards for each of these general standards for each of these sign types going through this whole, each of these tables in here.

there should be a historic district section for sizing for each of these that's different than what this currently States as a standard well I think the plaza is a special case and it needs to be treated as a special case and what I mean by that is I think that each application needs to be considered on its own i don't think it's possible nor would it be advantageous to the city to impose a formulaic set of standards for the historic district of the plaza i think the buildings the architecture the history is such that that each situation, each potential condition needs to be evaluated on its own. And I think the plaza is of such importance that applications for signage, new signage for new businesses, obviously existing businesses have what they have, should come before the Planning Commission for approval.

If we play that out, then I'm just wondering if the conversation would go something like this. Somebody comes in front of this body, and they want to put up a projecting sign. And then we probably ask, what's the ordinance for projecting signs? Right? So we have those, we have these somewhere. You know, all these measurements somewhere else. I think the question I would see is, what I would ask is, do we feel comfortable with what's already established? Because we have to start somewhere. And I know that's more work, but I think we have to, if we feel that what's already been established for these signs is also appropriate,

for the plaza it's a starting point so that was my question is these this is what's been established these regulations here these general standards on these signs have been what's been established and considered since the last hearings as well as in discussion with bob sanders and what the general you know, what the industry standard is. And I've made modifications to those based on his comments as well with a lot of these general standards for these. So the question that's brought up for the positive retail overlay district is whether these standards are adequate. And it sounds like, at least with Commissioner Barnett, we're considering whether a use permit should be required for signs specifically in the PROD. Commissioner Barnett?

Well, I think... I could make the case that signs in the plazas should be reviewed in general. On the other hand, we do have some standards, and I think a variation on that, going along with Commissioner Dombach, is that a variance from the existing standard would have to come before the Planning Commission. So if the standard for a projecting sign is nine square feet per side, if someone wants to do a 10 square foot per side, they would have to get, they'd actually have to come before the commission to do it. That's a requirement.

I've done a lot of great signs around the square. People change and come and go. There's a six-foot hanging sign that you can have and a ten-foot wall sign. But the cost and the timing and I think it's an added burden to new tenants and people to have to come before this board. And I know they're raising the fees and all that, but... If staff has a criteria that's higher than the normal guy and they, you know, lots of planners, lots of cities have planners that say you have to go through the historical sign planner just with a checkoff list and review it, that's okay. I like, I mean... I set my standards high for these signs, but maybe some people don't. I just think the bureaucracy, the cost, and the timing is pretty rough if you send them in here.

I agree with what I'm hearing. Any deviation from this obviously already requires discretionary review. I'm very comfortable with proceeding on these standards.

May I ask one question? So one thing I didn't, if we could go back to your table, I think we would all agree that we probably don't want those LED, we do have those LED signs on the plaza. So is that a different standard? Is that something we want to continue? That's a slightly different...

I thought they were expressly disallowed.

I'm asking. Because there are some real estate places that have...

Are you talking in regard to these multicolor LED and electronic messages?

I want to make sure those are not.

So that's been specified here, saying that they're not allowed within the Plaza Retailer. Okay.

But we do have those TV monitors that are in the Plaza. It's like real estate signs that have those are allowed?

I mean, I don't, I mean, I guess those would be considered multicolor LED signs.

That's why I'm bringing it up.

Yeah. Because most of the time they are multicolor LED.

But they're still there.

Well, right now, I believe, yeah.

Okay. I mean, that's the thing. When I think about the ethos of our plaza, it's something that I think would be more impactful since we have standards for the sizes and the types of signs.

So I think that is where we need to know from you all if that's something that you do want to allow for real estate purposes, to allow that type. Because we aren't regulating it when it's less than a square foot, right? Currently. I think it's like one square foot. So some of them are larger, but some of them are just mini little screens, right? And they're lit with the property.

I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about like a monitor.

talking about yeah yeah you are too I'm talking about the monitor but some places have them where they're small monitors it's still electronic sign lighting that it's lit um because you can see them at night you can see as you walk by you can see what's for sale so so I think that's the question is do we what do we consider a sign and is that considered a sign to the planning commission that we need to regulate and count towards the total aggregate Because they're filling the windows in a lot of these locations. So that's the question.

Well, I think there are two questions, right? One is, is that considered a sign? Which it should be. But then there's the question of allowing these motion-making things, which I think is a separate question. So I think to your question, you're saying if we include those as the aggregate then that goes into the aggregate standard. I think that sounds reasonable. But then there's the question of even if they had that, do we want something that has a lot of motion, like an LED would have?

I think based on this, we said no motion in the plaza. So my question, because also with the illumination, I consider that illuminated. So it needs to go off at 10 o'clock, right, based on what our rules are. But... When you walk by them, just think about it for the next time of whether or not each one of those, even if they're only small, one square foot. So ignoring the monitor one. So we're saying no to the monitor based on this conversation that I'm understanding. But when you walk by some of these, they're just a single property. And it's like an 8 1⁄2 by 11 looks like page. But it's an electronic image that's being displayed. And it's bright. It's an LED screen. So that's where I'm wanting to make sure we Would allow it and that we would include it. We would actually measure that as a sign.

I mean I personally Those I think How many people are I wouldn't allow it? Because or I'd make it part of whatever that sign aggregate is that they that they're allowed to have but you know having those signs of at 10 o'clock at night, it seems like it's a slightly different purpose than advertising a business.

Commissioner Burnett. Well, I think there's two distinguishing features here that need to be separated. The purpose of signage is to promote is promotion, I mean signage is promotion. And the inclusion of a large television monitor in a window is promotion. Now it doesn't differ in terms of the promotion of a product than somebody who puts a display of the products for sale in the store in the window. I mean that's called merchandising and people do it all the time. So the distinguishing feature to the LED monitors or the television monitors is that they are illuminated. And so that, to me, falls under the area of illuminated signage or illuminated promotion. And if we want to prohibit or regulate illuminated promotion, which includes both signage and promotional product, internally illuminated promotion as opposed to a light in a window showing kitchen mitts, then I think that's a distinction that we can make going forward. Obviously, there's nothing we can do about the existing conditions unless a new tenant moves in there and wants to do something akin to it. Further down the street is another real estate office which has its windows covered with printed paper photographs of the properties as what's the difference between their promotion in their windows and the promotion of the television in the windows while the difference is the internal illumination and its effect on the street and on the passerby so i think if we use internal illumination as a criteria for what promotion is allowed that will allow us to regulate it better than trying to define it in terms of a form of signage because it's just simply a promotional methodology.

If I may, I guess I'm having a hard time trying to understand what the TV signage would, how that is distinguished different than what an electronic message sign or a multicolor LED sign is. We have this for tunnel illumination, so I'm trying to think where would I add something that's trying to distinguish something different than what these two things are already covering?

Well, the current real estate, and we're talking about W Real Estate, which is the one that has all the television screens in their windows.

Multicolor LED signs? Yeah.

They're TV monitors. They're flat screen TVs with images of a property on them. And it's the entire window frontage of the building. I don't know how many of them there are, but there's probably 10 or 12 at least. And so they're just pictures of properties for sale, which if they were paper and not rear illuminated through the electronics of the screen, one could argue this is just a display of what the merchandise is that they have for sale, just like any other retail business. The difference is the illumination. Now this thing that I think distinguishes it from the message board or the message screen is something that has a changing message on it that either moves and contains a statement of some sort that travels across I think it's called a crawling message that crawls across the screen or messages that change and you know like the old Burma shave billboards and you end up with a different phrase every couple of minutes. I think that's what we don't want.

I think Jacob, are you saying that you feel that it's already covered in Item 3A?

I can distinguish it more, and I can distinguish TVs or other display images as part of the multicolor LED and electronic message signs. I can do it that way.

Okay, so basically add a little bit more language to Item 3A.

We've been doing those fire station signs for all over the, but we came before you guys to do the community center one with electronic reader board and it was turned down, but of course all the residents in the neighborhood had the 80 foot screen TV in their living room. I don't know how are we dealing with this is the future of a lot of pressure that you know can you we get a you know instead of having to put slide those letters in can we do a led reader board so I don't I don't know how we're covering that because

I mean, I think it's only for, we're only talking about the plaza. That's what we were focusing on. So, and it might be a slightly more burden, but in the real estate office, they could still have the LED TV. It just wouldn't be facing in the window, right? So someone, it could conjure them into the office.

Jacob, do you feel like you have direction on that?

Yeah. Okay. The last thing is just the realtor signage. And the one question I had is that what I'm doing with the realtor signage is essentially just pulling it into what's considered a portable sign here in this section for temporary signs. Portable signs will be the A-frames and the post signs that are out in front of the store. This section will be updated with information for other requirements specific to real estate signage for each of these types of signs. And I'm just trying to think about in terms of time limits. what that should be and if there should be a total number of signs allowed for real estate signage that's placed out for specific sale of a house or something and if they should be allowed on public property those are the three questions that I had come up because that's what other jurisdictions will typically regulate is those three things ask you a question that didn't have those sandwich board is that you're gonna add that to this So sandwich boards are included here?

No, the sandwich board for the real estate, where they put them up on the corners of streets.

Yeah, so I can add it here as well as another real estate sign, or what I can do is I can just add it here as part of the portables for other requirements as real estate portables. Okay. Just to make it that much. It would just simplify it in terms of what's allowed and not allowed. I should burn it.

Well, in answer to your questions, I don't think there should be a time limit on how long a in-the-ground real estate sign can be posted in that it's indeterminate how long it takes to sell a property. And to constrain the amount of time that a sign is put up would be essentially to constrain the opportunity for the property to get sold.

So let me clarify, time limit as in amount of time that may pass after something's been sold?

Oh, okay. Well, yes, I think personally, I haven't seen this as a problem. I think when properties sell, the signs come down pretty fast. Yeah, I mean they say sold for a while and then it's gone so you know 14 days 30 days whatever it is In terms of number you asked the question of how many signs you could have as a total Honestly, I've never seen more than one real estate for sale sign up on a property, but I would ask to reset other than the sandwich boards at the corners in the ground sign on a post.

So our MLS, we're beholden to the rules of the MLS, the Multiple Listing Service. So typically, and the signs that are put in the ground for sale with your brokerage on there, you know, we're charged for that. So an agent, once he gets the job done, they don't, you know, they don't want to continue paying for that sign to be in the ground. So typically they go away very, you know, you might throw your sold thing or in escrow or whatever up there for a short amount of time, but they do go away quickly. That has, you know, somebody selling, their house for sale by owner, I have no idea. We also cannot have, we have directional signs as well. So if you're on a street that is a little alleyway or something, we're allowed to put up just the street numbers. I have a contract with a sign company. I call them up and I say, I need blah, blah, blah, and they have my panels and they have my all of that stuff and they go and I put an order in to go have them put it up on the property. We are not allowed to put up the street name. So like for instance, like Nathan's Creek, that little lane there, if I've got a house for sale there, it has to be where I could just put up the street number, like 455, and I'm allowed to put that directional sign. And I'm just speaking through the MLS rules, not our city rules. But to restrict the amount of time that a sign can be up is restrictive, because the market speaks. I have no idea how long it's going to take me to sell the property. As far as A-frames go, this is the direction that we've been given. They are prohibited on the plaza. And they are, they're now made out of materials that are pretty hard to destroy. And they come in all different sizes. But we are not allowed to put them on the corners for health safety hazard standards. And the city will go around and they'll take your signs. And then they take them to the city yard. And when you want your sign, you know, where'd my signs go? You gotta go to the yard and, you know, collect them. I've been told that, you know, if it happens numerous times, you're gonna be fined at some point. But I've never experienced that or heard that happening. We're also not to put them in on the sidewalk where there's the handicap, you know, the yellow, bright yellow, the handicap access is there. We're not allowed to put them there. And those signs will be taken away if they are found in that. And there to be, I mean, I don't know why you're, you know, those are restricted. They're nothing formally restricted, but they're up for the time that you are having an open house. One to three, one to four. and you collect your signs and you go on your way. Some people throw up the balloons, and some people put up the, you know, but they're very, very effective. We have to have those signs in order to do our business.

So I'm gathering that 14 days after a property's been sold is good for the limitation on time. There's no limitation on time that can be up. in general until it's sold anyways, as of right now with this ordinance, and then with previous ordinance as well. So obstructing the public right away is not going to be allowed in general. So I guess is there, in terms of what your understanding of what MLS says, is there a limitation on the number of signs that you may place? And is there something that the city wants to establish in terms of the amount of these poke in the ground signs or A-frame signs for open houses or whatnot?

It's hard for me to imagine a house wanting more than one in-ground for sale sign. I don't know what the purpose would be. And as an agent, you're paying for those additional signs. I think one would be adequate. I can't think of something where one would want.

How about for these yard type one signs? These small signs here.

That are just a poke in the... Now, when I see something like that, I think of political signs. I don't think of... I don't see those in real estate. unless it could be like, again, for sale by owner. They might create a for sale sign, something like that, and put it in their yard. But professional brokerages, I'm not aware of those signs being used.

I'll just state that I've seen these signs in the city on multiple places, and I've seen them in a lot of other places as well. So I just want to be clear that when we make a requirement here, that there's going to be something to state something about it. Because the only way we're going to have, if there's a code enforcement case to remove something, there needs to be some kind of requirement to follow.

Do these signs that you see, do they actually have a brokerage name on them, or is it just saying for sale?

Yeah, I've just seen open house signs, and I've seen for sale signs.

Just an open house, and they're typically red and white.

Something of that sort.

And that could be a smaller or an independent, but a typical brokerage, is not going to use those, which would be, I mean, they're not substantial enough for the length of time that you need to be selling a home, nor would you use anything like that for, I suppose you could put it, you could use that in the front of the house for an open house, but, you know, it's all about your brand, it's all about your, you know, your You're trying to, you're promoting something in addition to selling the house.

Great. Well, I don't have any other questions in regard to the sign returns as it stands now. If there are any questions from commissioners that you would like to follow up on?

Are there restrictions on the size of the yard signs? I mean, there's the standard size that goes with the post. But for example, on a parcel that might be raw land or some amount of acreage, we have custom-made signs that are quite large. And they're sitting right there on the road promoting this vineyard or what have you. Do we have any?

Does the sign standard there seem too small for that, for yard sign type 3 or type 2?

Sounds pretty adequate to me.

Okay.

You're talking 15 square feet and 24 square feet?

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that that's adequate.

I'm very comfortable with the code here as it reads.

Okay.

Well, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate all your work on this. Bob, do you have a last request?

I'm on the Sonoma League for Historical Preservation. I have to do these plaques for Robert Dimmler all the time. And I had asked for five square feet on a plaque, and then you left it at three, but could we have four square feet? Because I have to get a lot of information on these plaques historically, and I'm doing one for the library, Carnegie Library right now, but... It says three, and I asked for five, but I was thinking four would be better.

Yeah, I mean... That's two by two, though. Where is it?

Historic plaques. It's in the beginning somewhere. Probably under exempt.

It's probably the one case that I'd be in favor of increasing the standard size for a sign.

It's good information.

I just had one more clarification on these on Jennifer on a double sided whoops on a double sided

Monument sign I can have it at 32 square feet each side or do I only get? If it's if it's reducing it to 16 and 16 per side. I'm ending up with a four by four sign And that's what that's that's less than what we get now the commission said that they are only are counting one side Okay, great. I just was I want to make sure Okay.

Thank you any final thoughts Okay, and with that, I am going to call for a seven and a half minute recess. And with that, we will go back on the record in the Planning Commission hearing. And we will move to item number 5.2 and the items for discussion. Portion of tonight's agenda presentation and discussion on accessory dwelling unit ordinance update. Very staff report, please.

So, um, We are behind the eight ball on our ADU ordinance update. So it really should be an annual occurrence given how fast the state keeps changing everything and their requirements that our city ordinances actually comply with their state law. even though the state law applies regardless, but that's okay. So we as the city cannot make anything more restrictive than what they currently permit. So there's very little that we can touch, but we can add some clarifications as long again as it doesn't conflict. And so there are some specific items We need to do a comprehensive update. As we showed you in the staff report, we have a number of bullets that were provided of some of the changes that have been made over the last few years. And so we need to bring that ordinance up to date. So we have already started that. We've provided some edits that we'll present to you next meeting, we'll bring forward to you. The ones that we're talking about today are really the simple ones and really around the first item being definitions. We think it would be valuable to provide more definitions that are not currently defined by the state to kind of help provide some clarity. There's two in here that I want to, or three, that I want to highlight. Under the current state law, Bus rapid transit, major transit stop, high quality transit corridors, these are all, they are defined under state law in different sections. As they apply, it's typically additional height allowances or no parking requirements. We technically have none of those within our city, but we've already stated that we're not gonna require parking for ADUs. blanket statement that the city has made policy wise for a while now so we're not proposing to change any of that and I just wanted to clarify that we could define these in here but they really don't apply to us in those cases so I would recommend that we just we just leave them out because they don't impact us in any way they don't change anything under our ordinance unless we want them in here just so that we can say they don't apply, but I just throwing that out there. I do think it's helpful to have some definitions that only pertained to this chapter as well that kind of just help people understand what is an EDU versus like an accessory structure. We have a definition of like a pool house and a guest house and things like that. So just what is an ADU? What is a junior ADU? Does anybody have any questions or thoughts about any words that have come up in your past dealing with cities that you're like, we need a definition for?

What's your definition for livable space?

So we can add something to that effect. I think we do have a definition and I can just double check what that is. But typically a livable space is going to be like the kitchen area, the family room, those types of things, but it wouldn't include like an exterior storage, like from an exterior access storage space. So conditioned space versus unconditioned space.

I have a question. So is a pool house distinguished from an ADU? Yes. So it definitely is? Yes. That pool house has a definition. ADU just doesn't have a definition.

So we would define a little bit more of what an ADU is. difference within this specific chapter. A pool house and a guest house both have definitions because as it relates to providing bathrooms and kitchens. Any other comments around definitions?

I have one question regarding number one on the JADU. So it says the proposed walls, the walls of the proposed existing, it has to be constructed within those walls. So I just want to make sure I understand that. Does that include a garage?

Yes. Junior ADUs just have to be from within your main house. So not a detached garage, that's a detached ADU. If you have an attached garage, you can cut out a portion of that garage, because there are limits on the size of a junior ADU. So like I said, you had a double garage, you could cut out a section of that. Other jurisdictions I've worked with, basically a breezeway. that may have not had finished walls would be enclosed to create that junior ADU. It already had the roof structure, it's just a matter of enclosing that space to be livable. What about if someone wanted to add an addition and make it a J, no, okay. So there is a limit on this total square footage that can be added with a junior ADU. It's basically like an entryway or it's I think 120 square feet.

I'm just asking these questions to see if they're defined. So if all of that is defined, I think great.

It is under state law. The one that's not is number two, which is in regards to the kitchen. So the state law did used to have definitions of what a kitchen was as far as a junior ADU and what's an efficiency. So what are those minimal aspects you need to provide? So I would recommend that we put in something around what an efficiency kitchen includes. So that way, when we're talking about a junior ADU, we're also making sure that they're getting cooking facilities instead of saying, oh, I'm just going to put one of those plug-in cooktops. That's not a cooking facility.

When you say a cooking facility, something that's Like a permanent, it's not just a microwave on the counter. Correct. It's actually a range or a, and how don't we also have to have, maybe it's from a rental tenant situation, but you have to have refrigerators. You cannot, you have to have a working stove and a refrigerator.

Yes. It doesn't require an oven typically with an efficiency. It's usually a cooktop, refrigerator, and then the sink.

then preparation counter so we would that a little bit more definition about what the expectation would be is there any provision in this ordinance that refers to limitations of the creation of ad use in, for example, a condominium development that is already covered by CCNRs and HOA regulations?

So when it comes to, I'm trying to remember what the ADU law is, and HOA and CCNRs, cities don't enforce those. So let's say there was no provision within their CCNRs that precluded the ADU construction. I can look into specifically CCNRs, but in general that would be considered a multifamily complex and you could, there is a max amount of conversion of space that could be done as well as the number of detached accessory dwelling units that could be provided with a multifamily structure. I'll look closer at the HOA. I get confused between all the laws. Some say that HOA laws apply, some say that they can't. So I'll have to look specifically to ADUs, I can't remember.

And does that language need to be incorporated into this in some fashion?

We can.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions around junior ADUs? In height, it's interesting the way that the ordinance currently is written. It has a lot more specificity than the rest of our code. In the state's laws requirements for detached ADUs, when it's four feet setbacks, 16 feet in height. And then also, this is where that comment came in earlier about major transit stop in a high quality transit corridor, that there's an additional height allowance within those, but we technically don't even have those. And then also detached ADUs with multifamily is allowed to be 18 feet. Again with those reduced setbacks, that's what that 18 foot is if anything is attached or within our Not within our setbacks or required setback areas Typically, we would allow it to go to whatever that zoning allowance is for that height So it could be two stories 30 feet is technically what we have most of our town So that's where that 25 foot or a height limit so that's our existing state requirements the city consistent in general with what those requirements are. What the city did was add plate height requirements which we don't have anywhere else except for one section in our multifamily objective design standards. So we're actually recommending that two things. One, that it's distinct, that we're consistent with our height being measured from finished grade as it's currently written in the rest of our code. And then also that we remove a max plate height requirements for ADUs.

Say that again?

would eliminate these max plate height requirements plate height yes yes okay yeah i'm okay with that all right um last but not least all right ab1033 went into effect on january 1st of 2024 and this allows for the separate sale and conveyance sebastopol recently did adopt it however they have not adopted what their policy is going to be around it they just adopted the ability to do it. This basically is saying that an ADU can be sold as a condominium and so what this law though does say is that this is one of the few instances in which the state has said cities you get to decide if you want to do this or not and so we are not at this time proposing to do it with this current update. What we're asking you tonight is, do you want us to look more into this and present an ordinance to you in the future that would implement AB 1033 within the city? Therefore, allowing ADUs to be sold separate from the single-family or multifamily residents.

Thoughts on that?

I have a question around that because I went ahead and did a little bit of research and I sent it to you. And I think from my perspective, I mean, I'm for this, but I do appreciate the potential drawbacks. And my question is, since there's ambiguity currently in the law, what latitude does a municipality have to clarify that ambiguity with their own definitions so for instance this this potential loophole where for-profit developers can actually forego a lot of the fees and create the ADU and then sell it for market price. Is there an opportunity for us as a city to say the only way that we'll forego the fees is if you make it 100% affordable into perpetuity, something like that? I just don't know what latitude we have to clarify that ambiguity and whether it would be legally Defensible because if we could do that and we could close the loopholes and And help facilitate more affordable housing through these condo conversions I I think that that's not an unreasonable thing to do Fast questions, I mean I Have a concern

very much along the lines of what Commissioner Dombach was saying, that this is, I mean, it's kind of like creating a de facto subdivision without the same level of scrutiny typically required of doing that. And I think, oh, a couple concerns. Removing stock from the rental, what could be available on the rental market for ADUs is concerning, and we're talking about different stratas of people in search of housing. And to which do we want to cater more? I'm not sure. And investors could come in and they could start constructing ADUs for the purpose of resale to try to maximize and appeal to a certain market, which could be more of a luxury market. Those are my initial thoughts on that. Anybody have anything to weigh in? Commissioner Burnett.

Well, I think you highlighted the defect in this whole state strategy. It's very interesting in the research I've done, if you look at the effect of the housing laws that have been passed over the last three or four years. The fact is that last year, the number of housing starts in California were the same as they were four years ago. About 100,000. The attempt by the state to solve what they're calling a housing crisis, which I call a housing affordability crisis, has been to construct a set of laws that do nothing but help the market rate developers. They haven't provided a lot of funding for affordable housing. And they're making the assumptions. They're basically using supply-side economics to solve what they see as the housing dilemma. But mostly I see them as having been captured by the profit-making, for-profit housing community. And so our hands are tied. We don't have any choice. I don't have any major comments to make about the changes that we have to make in our ADU ordinance to conform to the state requirement. They're minor. The reality is that the state is attempting to do something that isn't solving the problem. And the problem is that people can't afford to live here. They can't afford to live in California the way they used to. I think this is going to be a major campaign issue in this race for governor, and I think that the argument about government regulation is going to come back to erode some of the traditional area of support. even from the Democratic side of things, because people can't keep up with it. They can't keep up with the laws. The laws can't even keep up with themselves, and they're contradictory. I've said in the past, you know, we require the construction of garages and single-family houses, and then we allow the elimination of the garage for the creation of the JADU. and no replacement of the garage or the parking that's associated with it. Now, how crazy is that to require something on the one hand that a new single family home have a garage and then to pass a law that says you can eliminate the garage once you've built the house. I mean, this is craziness. So I'll stop there.

I don't disagree. I mean, ADUs were originally promoted as kind of a way to provide rental housing opportunities, multi-generational housing, aging in place opportunities. And I think that separate conveyance may shift that purpose towards real estate ownership opportunities and away from housing production. And I'm just wondering, I'll turn this into a question. What levers should the city take the policy stand that ADUs should be able to be conveyed separately? What levers does the city have to make sure that they don't turn into investment products and instead remain viable housing opportunities?

That's something that we could look into more. I think that's why we wanted to pose the question tonight is to see how much time you want staff to spend on this and what specifically we are going to be looking into. So if the question is more around what limitations that we believe that we can apply to if we did want to do a separate conveyance. Maybe we look at that question first before actually looking at what a policy could look like around separate conveyance. The things that she's bringing back as drawbacks is some of the comments that Sebastopol has made of like, okay, now what do we do? We didn't have them get charged any fees and now they're able to just sell it? Or can I charge them fees now? that they want to sell it? Those are the questions that we're talking through. Maybe there's other cities, and I know there's other cities that do this in general, and there's larger cities that have already implemented this law. So we can kind of look to them to see, okay, what limitations have they put on? So maybe that's what we do. Maybe we look first at, can we do limitations? What do those look like to make sure that we are maintaining affordability? because that sounds to be the theme. And then incentivize that aspect. And we'll bring that to you to let you know. And then based on that conversation, then we can say, all right, do you guys want to proceed with developing the actual ordinance that would allow it?

Any follow-up questions to that? And then I do want to open it up to public comment as well. Any follow-up questions to that particular? At this point, I'd open up public comment.

Another person praying for patience.

uh so again representing sonoma valley collaborative um caitlyn cornwall and this is a topic that the collaborative is really interested in is increasing affordability and density inside the city and other urbanized parts of sonoma valley and so we do have a concern that you all have raised about um Well, sorry, I want to make a comment about the whole thing, the ADUs and the 1033. So just starting with the ADU issue, Yes, please, full steam ahead on ADUs, including larger ones. We hear a lot of housing stories in the Valley of families who would like to have a life here, and if they can find anything to rent and buy, it's often small that they can afford. But I think the minute that the city talks about allowing larger ADUs, there will immediately be a reaction like that could transform neighborhoods in ways that people don't want. So I think in this whole conversation, I guess we would urge you to set this policy in such a way that the maximum size of ADUs can be larger, like larger than 1,200 square feet, for example, but also convey that there are still a ton of restrictions left on what can be built. It's not like we're going fence line to fence line, and it's not going to go crazy. There's still all kinds of design limitations on new construction in the city. And then on impact fees, I think we want to not get in a situation where impact fees, like say for a larger ADU, are a lot more than the impact fees for a huge remodel. And we actually do want to have people choose ADUs which allow an entire new household to live in the city versus a big old remodel on a single family home. So I think looking at the landscape of incentives and penalties or costs and incentives for an ADU, we want to be looking at those alongside the costs and incentives for single family units so that we're In a relative sense, incentivizing what we want to be incentivizing. I hope that was clear. Let's see. Just a little comment or thread that came up about cooking appliances seemed a little... I don't know why we would care whether someone cooks their dinner on a two-burner induction plug-in appliance versus a four-burner, more expensive... I don't know why that would matter. I mean, it seems like we should make it as easy as possible for people who can make this community work to live here, and the exact configuration of their kitchen appliances doesn't really seem that relevant. Maybe I'm missing something there, but that just struck me as off. Yeah. Okay, and getting on to now AB 1033 and separate sale and everything, I think the collaborative has had the same kind of concerns that people have discussed that you're raising, that if we can construct a separate sale set of rules that actually results in people living here who can – Make a living here and contribute to the community. That's what we want. We don't want a huge speculation. Boom. On the other hand, if there are professionals who can get this stuff built and on the market, and this separate sale business is really complicated. You have to form an HOA. It's a lot of paperwork, and I can easily see there being a role for third-party companies. businesses to help homeowners get through the process I was at a presentation about this there were people on the presentation from Austin that's been doing this and I think other Texas cities also they've been doing this like gangbusters for years and so they have a whole ecosystem built around it there's like nonprofits and local government staff and real estate developers who just know how to crank through the whole process pretty efficiently. So I think there's definitely stuff to learn from there. And even in California, the first city to adopt this 1033 separate sale thing was San Jose, and that's two years ago. So there should be a fair amount of learning from two years of implementation, I would hope. So I basically just agree with what Commissioner Dombek and Commissioner Weirich said. Like, if we can do this well, then let's do it. Because we just really need to take all of the paths we can to unlock the kind of small and incremental densification of our neighborhoods that we can. Thank you, and thank you for letting me go on for a while.

Thank you for sticking with us. Okay, any other thoughts from the commission?

Yeah, just a comment because the other part was questioning is I like your plan to kind of see what we can do to firm this up in a way that works for what we're requesting and is defensible.

And our commissioner comments.

Okay.

I have no further comments. Do you feel like you have what you need?

Wonderful.

Okay. With that, we will close that agenda item and move on to director comments and announcements.

So tomorrow night is budget night at City Council. So we'll I hear more about that. Just so that you all know, I did not budget for a big project. This is my year of finishing projects, is what I'm calling it. Finishing projects. So we've got a number of projects that we're working on, big projects with consultants. So we're trying to get these all done before we start another big project. With that being said, we're still moving forward with things that you may be following, mobile home ordinance, looking at that again in August. So we'll be bringing forward the signs and ADUs to you at the next hearing. In July, we'll be bringing both of those. for your consideration for recommendation to City Council. And then you'll start seeing a couple of more ordinances pretty quickly here. We do not have a lot of projects right now. Partially it's because we've streamlined, so that's good. But there's just not a lot of big things going on so I don't know if you've seen them but we have done some minor design reviews sent out noticing we've done some small postings so the community has been appreciative of that shorter process for those but yeah so something's coming your way but really not anything large right now

Thank you so much.

I have a question. That housing nexus study, when is that?

So that will be probably at the end of the summer. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner reports and comments. Commissioner Burnett.

Well, I recently heard that a property south of Four Corners at Leveroni There's been a business there for quite some time, Sonoma County Drywall, on a property owned by Rich Merlo, which is in the county on the west side of Broadway. It's a bit south of Broadway Market, was recently acquired by a developer. I don't know what the plan is, if any. And obviously, the city has not been clued in on any plan. This is, I believe, a property we had previously identified as potential for annexation. The county, I think, has it zoned for housing. And I think that it would be prudent at this point, if you have the time, to do a little investigation with the county to find out, you know, who the new owner is, see what we can find out about what, if any, plans they have. It's a big property. I think it's like four acres. It's a considerable size.

Yes, it was occupied by dry

Sonoma County drywall they had a small building there and he operated his drywall business out of that location I Think in general and I don't know you know how communicative the county is with the city of Sonoma about What's bubbling up? I mean? for the county which has a two and a half billion dollar budget, Sonoma's really just a pipsqueak in comparison. And I don't know if they think about us, I doubt they wake up every day and go, oh gee, I've gotta check in with Sonoma and make sure that they're in the loop on stuff. So, it's unfortunate, I think it means unfortunately that we have to be the ones who are proactive and go after the information with them because I doubt that much is coming down to us automatically. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I have a question for Jennifer. It was based earlier on Caitlin's comment about the Montini, Montaldo, not Montini, yeah. And just curious, is the City Council the better venue for that kind of question?

Yes, so City Council will be the one that would determine the amount of funds that would be allowed to be released through a NOFA process for any kind of development assistance.

Great, thanks. Any other Commissioner comments or reports? No. Okay, with that I'll I entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved.