Planning Commission, Cac & Pros - Regular Meeting

I convene and call to order the planning commission meeting for November 20th. Um, may we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Willers here. Commissioner O'Neal here. Commissioner Barnett, present. Commissioner Nent, present. Commissioner Ladimer, here. Vice Chair Wyrick here. Chair Dbach here. And youth me youth member Peterson here.

All right. Now we'll move on to the approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any reason to change the agenda as it current stand currently stands? I'm seeing none. So there is approval of the agenda. May we please have a roll call? Commissioner Willers? Yes. Commissioner O'Neal? Yes. Commissioner Barnett? Yes. Commissioner Nent. Hi. Commissioner Limer. Yes. Vice Chair Wyrick. Hi. Chair Donbach. Yes. Youth member Peterson? Yes.

All right. And now we will move on to the pledge of allegiance. All stand. All right, moving right along. We'll now open for public comment. And these will be comments that are on any agenda, pardon me, on any item which is not appearing on the agenda. Um, and I would ask when members of the community come up to please state your name and spell as necessary. Is there anyone would like to speak?

Let me fight my way up here. I'm not used to the place being empty. Must be a boring agenda tonight, huh? Jeez. Um, anyway, I have just a short statement that I want to put on on record. Unlike most of us our age, I have to take off my glasses to read. Um, so, uh, excuse me. Can you state your name?

Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. I'm a little nervous. Jesse Ortiz. Jes O R T I Z. Um, you don't need my address, right? Okay. Okay. This to um I wrote I wrote uh I stated this at the council meeting a couple weeks ago and now for the planning commissioners here, too. Um, my name is Jesse Ortiz and I'm here on behalf of over a 100 neighbors who will be adversely affected by the proposed 50 to 60 unit townhouse project at the corner of Fifth Street East and Napa Road uh by City Ventures. I wish to put on record that the neighborhood expects um that the neighborhood expects the city council and the planning commission to be transparent and forthcoming in a timely manner regarding any and all motions or actions in connection with the annexing, reasoning, and the future development of the said property site. I wish to be clear that the neighborhood will um will remain vigilant and concerned by the scale and the scope of the proposed project. The reason I wrote this is when City Ventures had their open house, I think it was uh almost a month ago, there were well over a hundred people that attended and the vast majority of the neighbors never heard that the project was even on the table. They were this is the first time they heard about it. So, uh you know, I think it's important that the word gets out. We've got the neighborhood canvas. We're telling everyone what's going on. Um, and obviously we're not anti-growth, but something in the 20 to 25 unit range

would be a lot better in that neighborhood. Um, but anyway, that's it. I've used up my 3 minutes of time. Thank you for uh uh thanks for for listening to me. Hope you guys keep that in mind. It's um like I said, a lot of the neighbors didn't didn't know about it and they're just worried because at the open house it was a 50 unit or 51 unit proposal. Two three months ago when we were all here it was a 60 61 unit proposal. So somehow it scaled back. I don't know why. I don't know if there was dialogue from the city that, hey guys, you know, you got to tone it down. Obviously, we'd like to see see it toned down to about half of the 51. So, anyway, thanks for listening to me and I'm done and I'll get home and have dinner.

Well, thank you for your comment. We appreciate it.

Anyone else? I'm seeing no one else um opting for public comment. So I will close the public comment and then we'll move on to the consent calendar. There are two items on the consent calendar. One are the PC minutes from October and the second is a request to install banners on Plazaite standards for the Sonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance. So, I will open it up to um the commissioner and ask if anyone wants to change anything on the consent calendar or has any comments. I'm seeing none. So, uh motion to approve. Oh, excuse me. What? Oh, thank you very much. Is there any public comment for the consent calendar? I'm seeing none. So, I'll close public comment. Um and now I will uh ask for a Motion

for the consent calendar. Move to approve. Second. Second. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers, yes. Commissioner O'Neal, yes. Commissioner Barnett, I. Commissioner Nent, I. Commissioner Limer, yes. Vice Chair Hyrick, I. Chair Donbach, yes. And youth member Peterson? Yes.

The motion passes unanimously. All right, moving right along and we'll enter the public hearing portion of this evening's event. First item is item 4.1, which is a discussion, consideration, and possible action to approve a signed permit at West 35 Napa. Uh, so I will and that is the Bank of America building. So I will hand it over to staff.

Thank you, Chair Donach. um planning permit technician Natalie Breezy presenting for this project. Um so this project is located at the corner of First Street West and West Napa Street. It's approximately 3400 or 34,000 square feet um with frontages of 113 feet approximately and 303 feet approximately along for street west. Um they are So, there's a little bit of background with this project. So, they actually went before the Historic Preservation Commission on September 9th um and they were proposing to remove the three large wall signs that are up on the building and replace them with um signs that were measuring a little bit larger. Um the commission had asked them to return with a second option with an compliant sign package and so that's what's before you here today. Um so option A is from their original submitt. It has a total um square footage for uh sign ext. And then the third sign, which is the same for both options, is only 27.9 ft. Um the new proposed aggregate area um for ext00001 and ext00002A will measure 18.3 ft each. In addition to the three original signs in the second option, they are also proposing replacement of 14 signs. Um and then four of the signs that are currently on the site will be remaining. All other signs will be removed. So there'll be a total of 21 signs left on the site. Um

so this is the first option for the larger signs. Um it measures 11t 4 and 78 in wide by 3 feet 9 in and 78 tall. And the logo is stacked on top of the lettering. It's going to be channel letters with internal illumination. Um, and that'll be the same color scheme and everything throughout the main wall size. And which face of the building will this be on?

Um, let me one second. I forgot to put the site plan in my presentation, but I can pull it up when we're done. But this sign um will be along First Street West and West Napa Street. So, the only sign that'll be the same size in both option A and option B is on the inside of the property facing more of the parking lot. Um sort of above that entrance where you walk by the handicap parking. Um And then this is option B for both of the signs that are street facing. Um, so it measures 13 feet 6 in and 38 wide. Um, but it's only going to be a total of 1 foot 4 and a/4 in tall. So they moved the logo to the side and shrunk it down a little bit.

And is this on the Napa Street side? This is proposal proposed for the first street west and the west Napa street um sides and then the inside sign will be this one and they're proposing this size to be the same. It's 27.9 square feet total.

How does the option A um compared to what's there currently again? So currently what's there is sorry my notes are missing. So currently what's there the sign measures 43.2 ft each and option A is proposing 43.7 ft each. Um currently they're not illuminated. Um and that's the main difference. So a wall sign that's non- illuminated can be up to 48 square ft. Um, and our max size of illuminated internally illuminated wall sign is 27 square feet. So that's kind of where the difference is. And the main issue is with the way we measure the signs. Um, it's in a square instead of the actual shape itself. So there's a lot of space within the 43.7 square feet that is not even the sign. It's just the way that we measure it. Um,

and can you Jake maybe you could on this. Is the new signage proposal any different for this kind of sign? And how does this proposal fit with the new So, we're just we're just going to focus on the current ordinance and then we can talk about that afterwards if that's okay. I answer in the sense of I'm not sure specifically for this one. I know that the sizing will matter just for the sign type itself. It's not going to be based on whether it's illuminated or not. That won't change the difference for the sizing. Just thanks. Looks like they've changed their logo, which is Yeah, prompted this.

They're updating their logos and color scheme around the building. No, we're moving into a hyper nationalistic image here instead of

So, theformational signs that are proposed changing are parking signs. Um there'll be fiveformational signs throughout the property and then six parking signs and three just directional signs for no turning and entrances. And then there are four signs that are remaining and they're just the well Bank of America signage that's on the door. So it's that small little lettering. So, we're asking for a variance with the number of signs because with this lot and the frontages and the rear parking, they are allowed three signs. Um, but they are asking for in total on this property 21 signs. Therefore, the variance is required. Um, also the aggregate size of the signs does not comply for option A. Um, but it because there is an allowed aggregate of 111.8 8 ft. Um, option B does comply with it being 102.5 square feet of signage proposed. Um, let's see. Okay. And then the illumination. So, we discussed it a little bit before. Um, option A, the maximum size of those signs will be 43.7 square ft. And then option B, the maximum size is 18.3 ft each. And the maximum size of illuminated sign allowed is 27 square feet. So option B is compliant with that code section and option A is not. Um so if planning commission can meet the signed findings as well as the variance findings, then staff is recommending um planning commission approve either option A um or option B for the sign permit application at 35 West Napa Street including action to

approve a categoral exemption pursuit into section 15301 and 15311 of the state sequent guidelines. staff is available for any questions and the applicant I believe is also here as well. Before we start, has uh anyone on the commission had exparte conversations with anyone? Bank of America. Okay. Now, uh is the applicant or representative here? You come up and give us your name in case we want to ask you questions. My name is Aaron Kretic. Um own Solano Sign Company on a Fairfield and we do several banks for Bank of America and this has been the toughest one. Welcome to is what it is. Um, would you like to say anything before we

um ultimately I know she she touched on the way that the square footage is figured out. If we took the same exact layout proposed in option A and move the logo from here to in front of the letters, we'd be well under the the maximum square footage allowed. But because the way the city figures out the square footage, it's the total sign area all the way around it. So all this dead area above all the letters except for the three or four in the middle where the logo is is included in that total square footage. So if that could be looked over or pasted, you know, and considered that we're not asking for 47 square foot of signage. It really is about like we forget it was it 1921

correctly. It's 18.6 square feet that's actually illuminated of the sign. So, we're well below the total allowable, but based on the the way it's calculated, um, it does not fit it. Um, questions. Go ahead. Uh, Commissioner W. So, the size of the letters and the I guess American flag graphic are the same in option A and B. Very close. Yeah. Just the layout. It's just a it's just a placement correct thing. Okay. And the and the reason for the two options is because option A is preferential to the applicant or

offer A is what they originally wanted from B of A. Um and the preservation wanted to see what it would look like if it fit within the regulations according to the current current code. Um and so that's why we came back with this. Thank you. Yeah. Uh Commissioner O'Neal. Um can you tell us what the purp is of wanting to change this and having an illuminated sign. I don't have a reason for that. Just what BFA wants. Um I know they're all their locations have it and I know other banks in town have eliminated signs so I don't know why it would be an issue. Will this sign be illuminated 247?

Um there was an issue with lighting and security we talked about last time. Um I don't know if you want to touch Let me the condition real quick. It won't be 247. It'll be off during the daytime. So, it'll just be evening and and night.

So, we have in the conditions that illuminated sun shall conform to all lighting standards the municipal code um and applicable sections of the California building code. Um and which sign is determined to violate those provisions they will have to remove. Um but in the code, I believe it is one hour after opening they're allowed to be illuminated for. But because This bank has an 24-hour ATM. Um, their lighting is a little bit different. Um, so we can take a look at that, but the standard is usually one hour after they close. Commissioner White, so what about option B still doesn't comply with

Option B is compliant. The only thing it's not compliant with is the total number of signs just because they they're over the three. Thank you. And I just want to confirm that the um the size of the letters, the size of the um logo are pretty much the same between option A and B. It's just the positioning. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, go. You are welcome to ask that questions. Thank you. Sure.

Um I'm I'm a little confused about why some of these signs are falling under the issue of variance. In other words, signs in a parking lot indicating, and I haven't looked at all the signs that they're talking about of the 20 some odd signs you mentioned, but I assume there's a sign there that indicates that a parking space is for handicapped only. And there's signs there indicating, you know, other things about uh parking in the parking lot. Uh I'm surprised that the two little signs on the door that has to do with I think you said their club or something um would fall under this ordinance at all. these um so how is it that the totality of this variety of types of signs some of which are not promotional at all they're simplyformational and safety related would come under this ordinance at all

so in our ordinance currently there is a section for exemptions um and directional andformational signs that are no larger than one square foot are exempt from counting towards aggregate and sign count. Um because these all measure just over one square foot each. They're closer to two square feet. We have to count them unfortunately. Thank you. That's that's a sensible answer. Thank you, Commissioner Wyrick.

I have one more question of staff. Would anybody care to venture a guess about why we calculate signs the way we do or what the intent was at the time? Is was it to prevent us vertical growth or or No, it's going to be um more about sign clutter

and what that looks like in small spaces, right? And so three signs um you know, how many signs does a business need? This one's a little different, right? it's got four walls that are visible versus in a lot of cases, you know, we if something's located somewhere else, they may only have one wall. And that same application of, you know, in this case, it gets three, but in most cases, businesses get two. I think my question is is more less in terms of the number of signs and more about the calculation of an individual signs area about why it's the box you know it's measured in terms of a box is there is there a rationale there's

I mean that's kind of why we're doing a whole new

understood is to to kind of help clean up a lot of those things that may not even have clarity in the code. Um it's and we're trying to be fair since we're all new. Um this is our third bank to come forward. All of them have gone through a rebranding this year. Um and we're trying to make sure that we treat every single one of them the same. I will say that every single one of them had pretty much these exact same variances. I think you guys saw one of those, right? You finished out Wells Fargo. Okay, thank you. That answers my question.

I have one other follow on on that. In the way that we currently calculate that box, is that um something that's common with other municipalities or are there other ways that that those that signage totage could be calculated? You can actually you can do it by the box um or you can do it um because it's illuminated which is different than you can do it by um that actual square footage of the quote unquote material of the sign. It's part of the reason why sometimes when we do boxes it's more about okay here's the location and they're going to adhere um this physical thing to your building. So that is an improvement that is x square feet. Um and then sometimes you see it where it's they're taking up this much space and so that's a box and in this space they can put whatever they want. So there's just different ways and we just need to be clear in our new ordinance um how we're actually going to calculate those things. And and Natalie, could you go back to that table you had generated where it talks about the illumination I think? Yeah. Uh so again the option B um regardless of the size of letters and things like that in the box, it's based on the illumination kind of criteria. um it fits in that that criteria that we have.

Yeah. So, option A because of the way that it's stacked on top of each other, that one is not compliant with our current code. Um but option B, even though it's similar size and letters and logo, um it's that one is compliant just because it's all linear instead of stacked on top. Okay. So, no difference in the illumination the lumens that are coming out of the sign. Correct. It should be almost identical.

All right. Any other questions? At this time, I'd like to um Thank you. At this time, I'd like to open up for the public for any comments on this. I'm getting headshakes, so I will close the uh the women in back. They're very silent the whole time, very stonefaced. Um anyway, I'll close public comment um and then ask now if the commissioners have any comments that they'd like to bring forward. Commissioner Willlet.

Um I I have three comments basically. Um one is the illumination. Um I I think primarily from the variance standpoint and the way that we measure the sign, we'll probably talk about that later. Um, you know, I I understand that the box came out of the typical sign, which is typically a rectangle that sits either as a thing at the property line or on a building. So, this is a somewhat special circumstance in that regard. Um, but you know, for a long time in this community, we did not allow illuminated signs at all other than overhead um illumination of the signage um rather than a sign that's glowing um through the night. So, um, from my perspective, if we're going to allow illuminated signs that they need to comply with the illuminated ordinance the way it's written. So, in that regard, I would um support option B as the solution to that. And then the last issue is the location of the sign. Um the relocation of the sign on First Street um west and um on First Street West, the east facing sign um which is now being put up on top of the tower or the building rather than in its existing location which is um below the roof edge. Um, and I would support it being in its current location rather than even higher. Um, and and illuminated then. I don't think there's any issue with the sign being seen, especially since it's going to be illuminated. I don't think

we need to become um a community where signage becomes billboards essentially. Um and in my opinion the location of that sign in that location um is basically becoming a billboard. Um and then you know again the timing of the illumination um for this different signs um you know I can't see any reason why the ATM safety protocol would require the lights on the plaza facing the plaza or the light facing first street west to be illuminated any time beyond the hours of oper operation of the business quite honestly. Um, and especially the one on the plaza. I think the illuminated signs on the plaza are a special feature. Um, I don't think that it's a benefit to the plaza to have illuminated signage. So, those are those are my issues and ways of solving them. I support option B as a solution to this while allowing them to be illuminated. I don't support the location on First Street West. I would prefer it in this current location. And in terms of the compromise, option B is the solution for me.

Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner O'Neal.

I'm in agreement with Commissioner Willers. I'd like to state that I still don't think this is highest and best use for this property. Any ways, um, I think, uh, the bank needs to go away at some point. It's hardly utilized, but there's no need for us to enhance the signage to the point where it's like somebody knows you're going to Bank of America and they're not looking for it in the dark. So, I don't see why we should put the sign higher up in the building. I would also want to minimize it if we could not have illumination. I would prefer that. I know that Bank America is a large operation and they like to cookie cutter everything just like McDonald's does. Um, but in Sonoma we don't like chains uh stores around the plaza and and Bank America is basically a chain store. I also think that uh Bank America has produced some really lovely designs and signs in other places like Palm Springs and I don't know why they can't do something similar in Sonoma that matches our aesthetic. So I'm not in a um frame of mind where I want to give any lenience whatsoever and I would like to see us give as little variance as possible. And I would just like to send the message back that I think that they need to um provide something that is definitely more consistent with our plaza aesthetics.

Commissioner Wyrick. So I might be in the minority and that's okay. But um if option A is preferential to the applicant and the only thing different between the sign in option A and option B is the way that it's measured. The letters staff staff's representation that the lettering is the same size, the logo is the same size. If the applicant wants it stacked instead of long, I I'm not offended by that. Um whether or not it's above or below the overhang I don't think is necessarily u critical or or consequential to me. Um I I would be prepared to to support um option A if that was what the applicant is is uh desiring. Um but I also support option B if that's the way that they get it done. Um I had another thought but it was fleeting. So,

anyone else? Uh, Commissioner Barnett.

Well, I'm going to agree with my two commissioners to the right. Um, and just add my own comment. I think that u I continue to be confused about what these banks think they're doing. It may be that the value of the real estate is such that um that that's the whole reason they continue to operate the way they do. Um they're basically empty inside. Uh the bank that I go to um down at Second Street in in Napa is basically interior is a sea of empty desks with maybe two or three people, one or two tellers, nobody there, and there's barely any customers there. And so clearly I think that that uh Commissioner Willer's characterization of the building basically being a billboard is is right on target. I mean this isn't signage that's meant to buttress a thriving retail location with lots of lots of people going in and out at all hours of the day or night. This is basically turning a prime piece of plaza real estate into an advertising and promotional billboard. And um I don't get the whole philosophy behind what banks are doing as I say. Uh but that's beyond my scope of reference. Um I agree that placing it higher on the building on a spot that even looks like it would accommodate a billboard is too billboard like. So, I don't support putting it up on the uh parapet or whatever that structure is above the roof line. And um as to illumination, if it complies, if it can be con designed to comply with

the language of our law, then so be it. Um but uh uh I'm I'm not going to and I'm not inclined for this um application to bend the rules. Any other comments or perhaps a question to the staff just in talking about Mr. Barnett's comments? So am I understanding at least with regard to option B that the location of the signage the east facing signage on first street west is in compliance with the regulations

that's first street west on the one that's on the internal side or the one up above up above. Yeah. So option B would be in compliance um just because it's 8.3 square feet proposed and our max allowed for internal illumination is 27 and its location being located up above the roof line is is also in compliance. The ordinance doesn't necessarily specify where on the building they can be located or not located. Okay. Thank you.

All right. I I'll make a comment. Um I mean I would agree that um it see certainly seems like option B fits all the ordinance and I think what we've heard today also is some consideration with regard to illumination on this square facing side and potentially positioning of the sign above or in its current position on First Street West. So um I actually have a question for staff as well. Um, I'm certain that Wells Fargo their sign is illuminated 247 in the evening. Is that It is not. No, it shouldn't be. And why is that?

They're under the same rules and regulations where their signs have to turn off after an hour past opening, but their parking lot lights and things, I believe, are allowed to stay on for safety. So, sorry, just clarify. Wells Fargo, the main sign is lit and it is stay on. Um, yeah. And then the other two signs are not illuminated on the building. That is the the other but the illuminated sign there's only one illuminated sign. It's the one on the monument and that is illuminated at night.

Okay. Um well, I I would ask if there's a compromise here. um if there if it's possible to um I've heard support for option B and option A, but potentially have a compromise of option B and um whether it's possible to have the positioning of the first street west below in its current position and potentially have illumination on the plaza side, which is unique, um to go to not be 24 hours. Is that a possible um way to amend this proposal? Can you say that one more time about which signs?

Yes. So um option B um and the first street west sign to be in its current position and allow it to stay on for 247 because that's a a main thorough affair. Whereas the sign that's illuminated proposed to be illuminated facing the plaza which is a unique area not be illuminated for 24 hours. I don't know if other committee members have a comment on that proposal. Um I do.

So there are three signs that are illuminated. One is interior. In other words, one's on the park in the parking lot on the same parapit wall on the opposite parapit wall. Um, and you can argue whether or not that sign should be illuminated or not. I was willing to, you know, my comments were I was willing to let that be illuminated because there was some discussion of safety in the parking lot. It's also the place where the signage is least visible. Um, but I I don't support leaving the illuminated signs that are basically in the historic district on the plaza for street west side as well as um the Napa Street side illuminated beyond an hour after closing of the building.

Any other comments? Would someone like to put together a motion? I'll make a motion. The motion is that um first regarding illumination, the illumination of the eastern wall sign, illuminated wall sign would be allowed to be illuminated 24/7. Um the illuminated sign on First Street West would change its location to the existing location. um illumination would um cease after one hour as per our ordinance,

one hour past closing as well as the sign on Napa Street um facing the plaza and that all of the illuminated signs um meet the criteria of option B. Um and that's my motion. Any revisions to that motion? Do I? No. But I will second it. All right. I guess we'll have a roll call. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner O'Neal.

Yes. And I'd like to put in a little clarity about the sign time because I'm just looking at their hours. I think they close at 5:00 p.m. So, can we just say illuminated light has to be off by 6:00 p.m. or 7 p.m. and be specific? What? Bank banks don't change their hours. I I would I would not support that. I would support the language that says an hour after closing. Okay. Commissioner Barnett. I. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Limer. I.

Vice Chair Hyrick. No. Chair uh Chair Donbach. Yes. And youth member Peterson. Yes.

Sorry. County Okay, the motion passes 6101. Thank you and thank you for coming out tonight. All right, good discussion. Uh on to item 4.2, two, which is a discussion, consideration, and possible adoption of a resolution recommending city council adopt two ordinances amending Senoa Municipal Code to implement housing element program 15 and 20 uh and finding the ordinance exempt from SQUA. So, I'll turn it over to staff. All right, it's going to be a meaty one. I hope you're ready. Um, everybody have their coffee? Okay, here we go. Jennifer Gates, community development director to present to you our housing element ordinances. Um, few of many to come. So, we're just getting these started. Um, so just as a background, in March of 2023, the city council, um, it's actually January 2023, the city council approved the city's housing element, but by March, HCB had approved. So that kind of gives it its blessing in its final date. Um, they did have a few changes after that, January. So that's why I use the March date. Um, but in it, it contains a number of implementation programs. And the two ordinances being discussed tonight are for recommendation

by the planning commission which are specific to program 15 and program 20. At the last planning commission meeting, we started I introduced this topic to you all um highlighting and providing you what the language was for number 15 and number 20 and how I'd be coming back um with the ordinances. So um just getting right into it. So, housing element program 15, it's um specifically that the city is going to amend its zoning code to accommodate a number of specialized housing types as well as low barrier navigation center um and also emergency shelters to be consistent with state law. And I'm going to go through each one of these, talk about what that state law is and talk about what is actually proposed in the um ordinance. A question was raised in regards to um if there are some flexibility and I will um point out a couple of places but there's not a lot. So um I tried to do um ordinances just based on either ordinances that I knew um that kind of set some parameters for which we can have discussion around and again in those cases um there is some flexibility to be not specific so you can kind of leave it open-ended but we'll get into those. So the first one I'm going to talk about is the low barrier navigation center. Um specifically um there are two government code section or a whole series of government code sections that define a low barrier navigation center and provide those requirements in our state law. The main component of this is that the low barrier navigation center um has to be a byite use in areas zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones

which also permit multifamily uses. And as we know, we do allow those uses in both of our mixed use and commercial and some other zones. So per since that's the case, um we have made some changes and per the draft ordinance, we are going to provide a definition of what a low barrier navigation center is that would be consistent with the state law um and add to our land use table. Um, which by the way, I gave everybody um a land use table that actually has where the single family home and multif family home. I sent that via email today. Um, but I also provided that to you. There was a question around um where are multif family, where is single family allowed, is it permitted use um things like that. So um those are at the diaphrag with you. Um so they were added to the land use table as permitted by right in mixed use and non-residential zones. So you'll see that throughout the land use tables. Um and then also to add provisions for processing and operational standards. There is some uh flexibility in those processing and operational standards. Not a lot. Um I have seen it where low barrier navigation centers are treated just like an emergency shelter. Um so where the combination um I did keep it separate. Um and for your in just to let you know I did keep it separate section supportive and transitional housing. Um, this is a specific type of housing that again is defined um in by state law and um I provided those revised definitions to you in that ordinance. Um it gets a little bit more specificity.

We did have this in our prior ordinance, but it wasn't um quite consistent with the state law. So you'll see some edits where it's been added to be more consistent, specifically the fact that it shall be considered a residential use and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same types in the same zones. So when we talk about that, we say, okay, if it's all contained within a single family home, then it should be treated like a single family home. And so if it was a single family was permitted by right in that zone then supportive and transitional will match. If it requires a use permit in that zone then the supportive and transitional will match for that type.

Um will we have an opportunity to see the definitions? Yes. Okay.

Um we'll open the code after I go through all of it because it's easier to go by each section. the code is specific to the code sections. Um, also to amend that footnote just is just a little small little amendment. Um for residential care facilities um we um again defined by the state law um and again that it should be a residential use and just like supportive and transitional it's going to be treated exactly the same of the same type of dwelling in the same zones. So, we did update the land use table and we also amended the definition and there is a new footnote now provided next to residential care homes that states um because this is another new section of our state law where it specifically states that when requiring use permits, the conditions of approval shall be objective and shall not create barriers for housing for seniors, persons with disabilities or other special needs populations. So specifically stated in the code and it just makes it simpler to add it on to our code for employee and agricultural employee housing. Um I know it's really confusing so much fun. Um it is uh how do I there's two different things going on. One is um I'm going to jump to the bottom. The employee housing that's providing accommodations of six or fewer employees is to be treated as a single family structure. It can't require a conditional or special use permit or a variance to allow that. If you are employee housing for agricultural workers and you have no

more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for single family or household, it shall be approved in the same manner as any other agricultural activity in the same zone and is considered an agricultural accessory use. So we don't treat it like residential in the sense of uh the code. It's actually an accessory to an agricultural use. So when you see when I'll show you uh the tables or when you look at the tables and you see where employee housing of the larger the 36 beds that's specifically in areas that we allow agriculture because it's an accessory use to agricultural use. And then it's also matching. If it's permitted by right then it'll be permitted by right. If it's not, it's a use permit. It'll be a use permit. I'll show you. We'll get there. Um, also, just to let you know, employee housing um is regulated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development unless the county has decided to take that on that responsibility, and our county has not. So, the changes um that were made to the um to our code as it currently exists um in this draft ordinance is to add definitions that are consistent with state law as it pertains to employee housing. Updated the lounge use table for the permitted or conditionally permitted which is consistent with our residential and agricultural uses of the same type. Adding footnotes to add some clarity around those different types of employee housing. And then also added provisions for processing and operational standards for employee housing which is for greater than six because otherwise we

have to treat it like a single family home. Um so it has standards for what is an accessory agricultural use. So what does that stand? What does that look like? Standards for temporary trailer use. Um occupancy and employment criteria. Um also that they have to obtain a permit from the department of housing and community developments. are the ones that are technically regulating and enforcing and doing the inspections. Require a covenant on the property um identifying these requirements and then also require the removal um or obtain approval for a use after the activity actually ceases. So it's not one that will um remain with the land if it ceases. single room occupancy. So in the state law in the housing element section, it requires that the city accommodate for this housing type. This is kind of where our flexibility is. Um so the draft ordinance adds a definition for what single room occupancy is. It updates the land use table um to um permit or conditionally permit which is consistent with other multifamily residential uses. So treating it the same. Adds a footnote and then also adds provisions for processing and operational standards. These includes such things as the unit size limiting minimum to 150 square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet. This is kind of where your flexibility comes in. that bathroom, kitchen, and laundry facilities and common area requirements. So, in that's multilevel. We're going to require that those facilities exist on each level um for residents. Also, that there's a facility management plan and then a requirement for on-site

management um to live on site if over 10 units. That's again another location where we can have some flexibility. Um it's just something that I have found in other locations. It'll vary on the number of units, but that at a certain point um having a manager on site, just like apartment units, you have somebody that you can go reach to uh if issues arise, things like that. In the staff report, I highlighted one of the questions. This is one of those questions that I have for you because each community is different on how they want to treat um density of a single room occupant because technically a single room occupancy is just a room and a unit is supposed to have a kitchen um and a bathroom facility in that space to be considered a unit. That's how we would technically consider a density. So as you know in each zone we have a minimum or maximum or both density um for residential uses. So let's say it was 20 dwelling units per acre. The question for you is do we consider a single room occupancy housing unit regardless of the existence of the kitchen and um the bathroom in the space to be considered a dwelling unit? Or do we apply a specific density standard only for single resident occupancies? And an example that of this that I found was that traditional density would not apply and that in no case this is the example before you that in no case may the number of units exceed three times the maximum density that is applicable within the subject zoning district. Again this is just an example. This is

where we have room for discussion um around what that would look like. So F um setbacks lot coverage all those thing all those things would still apply to set the envelope. It's just a matter of how many rooms do how do you want to limit or not the number of rooms that go within that envelope. Okay. And then emergency shelters. Um there's only two small changes that have happened since we created our ordinance. Again, state law mandates what we can and can't do on emergency shelters. Our um uh current ordinance does comply except for these two things. Um this is the first one is that it needs to require that the parking for emergency shelters shall comply with requirements of off- streetet parking for residential or commercial uses within the same zone. As you know, we don't do parking by zone. We do parking uh for use, but there are certain instances um where we have allowed greater um flexibilities like in the plaza for parking and things like that. So those are are different ways that maybe some other communities um so we're proposing just to make sure that we reference that they need to go to the parking code and that they can't that we will not be able to enforce any kind of off- streetet parking requirement beyond a residential commercial use. So just making sure that that clarity is there. Um, so that's what we're doing um as far as the provision in the emergency shelter section of our ordinance. And then an update um to the land use table um that sorry, ignore my text um

there, but we're increasing from 15 to 30 beds um for the emergency shelter in the public zone. So it specifically um in our housing element stated that we would increase it and so that is what we are doing by that proposal. All right. The next program is housing element program 20. Um this one is specific to the reszoning. Um, and then this is going to allow developments by right pursuant to again our state law that when 20% or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in appendix A, which is at where we located our arena list, um, if they were previously identified in past housing elements. This doesn't include an application for a subdivision map. Um, and then a use by right is specifically that it can't require discretionary approval um, and require SQA. That's basically the the push. But you can do design review. It's just not SQA. It's not discretionary. We can't treat it like a discretionary process. But we can apply design review process. So the draft ordinance um is providing some new definitions to affordable rent, affordable sales price, area median income, buy rate, review, and lower income household. I could not find any definitions for these throughout our code and so it's going to a good time to add them at this time. Um, we are also adding footnotes um to the multifamily dwelling section because

that is when it applies is when you're doing 20% of the multif family project for the specific sites um that are in the commercial and mixeduse zoning districts. That's why I'm putting it in commercial and mixed use is because that's where these sites that were listed in our housing element are located. So it spe this was what is this underlined that you see here that's that is word for word what we're putting in the footnote and so it's saying on these specific sites that this is going to apply only these are the sites because you asked where they were um we talked a little bit about at the last meeting but this is the visual to kind of show you um so again the lot next to safe another one is um I call it the Norbon property at 590. Um and then the last one is at the corner of Napa Road in Broadway um that wraps the corner, but it is not the corner lot. So just so that we're clear, it's wrapping it. Um so these are the three sites that this pertains to and only pertains to. Um I did have a question which made me rethink what I was writing in the definition. So, I already made an amendment. So, um the affordable rent and affordable sales price, um when I was doing it, I was taking it off of a very specific rent and a very specific sales price, um instead of having it be adjusted for the actual affordability level. Um so, it's not 70%. 70% only applicable to a low income uh project. So we could have a very low, we could

have um low, we could have moderate. So that's why I changed I took out that specific wording. The other question that came up is what is one 12th of 30% of welcome to my life. Um so when we talk about um what is affordable to a household and my real estate agents will know this um 30% of your income is what is the traditional standard for what is affordable to you 112th makes it your monthly affordable um and then so your affordability level is going to of your AMI based on your household size. So this is the calculation that we get to do every time every year for all the rentals and um sales prices. Um now it's all written out for your love too. All right. So, I'm gonna open the actual um ordinance and we can go through it and you can ask your questions as we go through unless we have some just general open-ended questions right this second. But otherwise, the staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution recommending um that the city council adopt the ordinance um that amends multiple sections of title 19 to implement um program 15. and then another ordinance to um implement program 20 and then finding it um exempt from squa. So while I open it, are there any questions? I have we'll start with Commissioner Nan.

Yes, a question. Do we have Can you give me an example of some SRO's that we have currently in the city? Do we have any? I am not aware of any in my two and a half years here. I can't think of one. I I've worked in one city that had him. That's I've only worked in one. So, and typically I think of like a city with um single room occupancies are like former hotels and they transitioned those rooms into SRO's. I don't know. But I we don't have them currently.

Um no. So, I don't know of any currently. Um, the only, like I was saying, the only city that I've worked in that actually had one, it was the upper level of historic um, building and it had multiple rooms and then this living space right in the middle with a kitchen and and it was just it was historic. It was just always like that. They um, it was a basically a boarding house, the old fashioned boarding house. Yep. Thank you. Uhhuh. Ask Commissioner Ladder first. Are you looking for comments on the stuff that you just presented or are you going to represent some of that those things? So, I was just wondering if there was just general questions. I'm going to show you ordinances here in a second.

I I just had a a question on your definition of the 12 112 to 30%. How does that apply to sales price as opposed I get the rent, but how does that apply to the sale price as well? It's um so when we do the calculation it's it's longer there's a lot more components to it but we still look at it at a monthly basis and then and then in the calculation it'll output an actual um it'll grow that up to us. Okay. I can show you the more elaborate one in a future time but probably based on a monthly mortgage payment, right?

It is. Yeah. with all these deductions that

thank you. I'm sorry I didn't wait to be called on. Madam Chair, uh my question, my fairly general question is in regard to the single room occupancy density calculation. And probably fair to say that we it's not that we don't have any, it's that we don't have any permitted. Um are you able to pull that slide up real quick? The single room occupancy density calculation. Actually, you don't need to pull it up. The the latter of the interpretations that it that contemplates a um as far as the density goes, the three times is that arbitrary where we get what's the rationale behind the counting it three times.

It was it's just an provided as an example. I saw it in another community. I know. But do you know what the rationale is behind the it's just to give it a little bit more give it a boundary right and so that's where I was saying that's is something that you can give a boundary you can not have a boundary or you can just consider it a unit you know the the three I when I heard that I put it in the context of a of a typical dwelling unit a three-bedroom house right and So that's where I immediately went when I heard that as criteria. Understood. Seems to make a little bit of sense.

That that does when you put it that way. Yeah. Thank you. I just had one question kind of along the same lines um on the S SRO. You mentioned that the same um standards apply the setbacks, the site coverage, F. And so basically um you if we use those parameters then the number of rooms would be dictated by their size right 150 to 500. Is that correct? Okay that's correct. Commissioner Barnett.

Um I just need a little clarification on something. Um, are there rules pertaining to uh, for example, an SRO that is a rental, which for all intents and purposes would appear to be a boarding house as distinguished from a vacation rental or a bed and breakfast, which is essentially a form of a boarding house. Uh certainly a bed and breakfast is the rules pertaining to a bed and breakfast have to do in part with the composition of what's allowed in a given room. Um in other words, you can't have a bed and breakfast with its own with a kitchen in every room. Um and there's all but there's also a definition of what constitutes the rental period that is allowed that qualifies it. In other words, is a single room occupancy structure going to have a minimum rental period of 30 days? And is that in the ordinance?

Yep. You're look right. It's on your screen right now. Okay. Thank you. I got you. Any other questions from the commission before I open it up to public comment? Uh well, do you want to go through a little bit more or are you like is there any specific questions in the ordinance itself? I did have a couple clear. Okay.

I mean, the only other question I had um was just to clarify on the tables um the designations, you know, I'm assuming for instance on 2-1 R is residential, but just not 100% sure of the O is that, you know, just to make sure that I understand. And then on um on the A on the special purpose understanding that the land use is APK I guess it's a park public and I and W I'm not sure what that is.

Sure. Um so um of course the word the O word just dropped out of my head but the R O is for um opportunity. There you go. Opportunity. the residential opportunity uh designation for zoning. Um so residential hillside, rural residential, residential low, residential synoma, residential medium, residential high, residential opportunity, and residential mobile home parks. Here we go. Those are what those are. Thank you.

One last question on the emergency shelter. Um I think you said something about changing it from 15 beds to 30 beds. Is there also a standard for occupancy in the building because it's different between number of beds and number of people in the building? So emergency shelters are only for overnight stay and so your occupancy would be by based on beds and then employees. So it would be limited in terms of so it couldn't even be a warming shelter. It's only have it's for sleeping. Okay. Thank you. Um, did you want me to finish or who's what's Yeah. Okay.

Yes, please. This is commercial commercial gateway. Excuse agriculture park public and wine. Thank you. brings me to my question. Sure.

Do we can you identify for me where we have an agricultural zoning other than at the Sebastian Winery? Do we even have an agricultural zoning? Yeah, that's the patch. Yeah.

So, okay. So in so in theory if I understand the implication of this what we're doing is regulating the creation of agricultural worker housing by right on an agriculturally zoned site. Am I correct? Where ag it'll match how agricultural where we allow agricultural uses. Yes. To be connected. So if it's a use permit for an agricultural use on that zone, then that's what that would be. So I'm going to show you in the table.

Well, if it's already zoned a but but the zone itself has to be agriculturally zoned, right? It's about the use, right? So if the if it's agriculturally zoned and like the patch, they're growing vegetables there, that would be an agricultural use. And then the implication as I understand it would be on that parcel they would be able to create agricultural worker housing um attended to that use. Yes. So anywhere we allow that agricultural use we can allow the employee housing. So this right here on your screen right now I'm going to zoom in a little bit more.

Well we we can allow or we are obligated to allow. Uh we are obligated. Yes. Okay, thank you.

I have to treat it the same. Um, so this is the example, the seven or more employees. Um, in residential hillside and rural residential, we allow agricultural use permitted by right and we actually see some agricultural use still up in our rural residential area. Um and then residential low, we do allow agriculture use um with a use permit. Um but again, there's very specific standards um which we'll get into in the code around what this looks like, how many, how big, how it operates. It's a lot. Um and then again, employee housing six or fewer is going to be treated like a single family home. Um, so at the very beginning of this ordinance again is the sections that the first section we're going to talk about is just the definitions. So there are amendments and or brand new definitions. Um, in here I took out community care facilities um because we don't call them community care. We actually call them residential care. So, I just went ahead and revised that. Agricultural employee housing, we're now calling employee housing and then defining that a little bit clearer. Um, emergency shelters. This is one small modification to the definition. Sorry, I forgot to put it in the the PowerPoint. the um the law changed to actually say that on-site supportive services is to be provided and allowed with that shelter. It's it can't be treated any differently. So, we're just not going to we're just taking out the word minimal

and being specific that it's onsite. Um, again, employee housing, um, calling out specifically the sections of the code that relate to that type of housing where our state law is telling us what that means. Um, also what it's not, um, which is it's not a boarding house, it's not a rooming house, etc. Oops, sorry, hit that fast. Um, also defining what an employee is for purposes of this section. What a family is. This comes up all the time. Um, and we really can't define um, in the sense of like I can't say that you're not a family. Like if you all live together, I can't say that you're not. Um, so kind of getting into that. Uh, Do and so when we talk about doesn't that it's not temporary or of limited direction duration do those terms mean anything unless they're defined?

What what does temporary mean? Temporary means I'm like a subleasaser um from you for like or I'm just going to live with you for a couple of months. You know, sometimes kids move back in with their parents um you know, for a couple of months. It's just on a temporary basis versus you're a you're a family unit. You're going to live co-house together and you're going to share all the spaces together.

Basically, we're we're trying to what happens is for in around affordable housing, what happens is people come in and they say, "I want to purchase this house and this person's going to live with me." That person may have a completely different name, not be uh related, um not a partner. They're going to buy this house together. Um and so we can't def we just need to have it clearly understood that they can be considered a family as long as that they're not temporary. It's not I'm just going to live here for two months so that I can get this house.

And and to what extent and and is it even possible for the city to enforce something like this? We asked them to sign affidavit. But that's about all we can do in that sense and just but their names have to go all their names go on title. So it's it's kind of binding for like sales. For a sale, sure. But if if it's a Well, for lease, we won't require all names. All adults go on lease agreements.

Uhhuh. Okay. Definition of low barrier navigation. Um, residential care sighting. Yep. Really? I'm sorry. Okay. What do they mean by low barrier? I'm not clear about what that term is meaning.

So, um in um when we say housing first, um it means that you can't tell somebody they can't come into your basically a your shelter um because they may be um in need of other uh services. So, we call it a low barrier shelter um or navigation center. Um it's very it's a temporary housing. It provides the services that they need. Um you basically can't turn them away because they're on drugs or or things like that. To be tr to be to be completely honest, it's you have you cannot turn people away on low barrier. There's there's a very that's the whole idea behind it is that your there's a lot of shelters that have a lot of restrictions about who can stay and the idea behind the housing first was uh initiative is to lower all of those to provide services and housing to all those that are willing to take it.

Okay. So the low barrier once again that's a state imposed mandate.

Yes. And um does it apply to to permanent housing for previously homeless individuals or only temporary housing? This is temporary to help them get on the path to what what we would consider supportive housing is the next um so we can talk supportive a little further down but you would go from like a low barrier or an emergency shelter and then you would go into supportive housing and then from supportive housing you go into transitional housing and then to permanent housing or you can go from supportive to permanent. Okay, there's all the funding for permanent housing has been cut by the Trump administration and there's a recent put in article paper about it and uh at this point it's unknown as to what the effect is going to be. A number of people think it's just going to increase homelessness not not help the situation.

Okay. Um again, supportive housing. Um the new there's a difference the law there's a new law that went into effect um which is why we're changing um adding a little bit more to this definition. So there are two different types of target populations now. And if you meet a um the specific um target population for um that's established in the government code section 65650, you're actually eligible for streamlined ministerial review in the zones where multif family and mixed use are permitted. And so there is a footnote now to that effect. But the main thing is uh that is a change than what was previously identified for supportive housing. But it does have certain requirements that it has to um satisfy in order to get that streamlined review transitional. Um all right, land use tables. So again, the one that you have before you has everywhere that has mobile, not mobile, sorry, has multifamily housing and single family housing also. Um when I had sent it to the attorneys, I had all that, but they thought it was confusing for when I actually would submit it. Um that they would get confused if they didn't see underlines and and changes. Um, so, uh, I removed it, but I kept it for you guys and for myself. Um, so when you look at it, um, if you see any errors, let me know. But the idea again for a lot of these types, unless it's very specific in the code,

um, so specifically supportive and transition transitional, has to be treated the same way. So if it's permitted um single family homes are permitted then it's permitted. If sing if multif family homes are permitted then those are permitted. So you'll see in certain cases where I have a P or a UP um on those zones some of those existed and then we might have changed the code since we first did this um when we first added supportive and transitional housing. So, I'm just basically cleaning it up um based on those changes. Um and then adding those footnotes as far as uh employee housing and residential care and then the single room occupancy. So, again, if you see underlines, it's new. If you see strikethroughs, it's being deleted. And this isn't obviously the full use table. This is just the components that we are modifying. So single room occupancy was already in the code. I'm just adding a footnote because we had no direction in our code. We had no descriptions, no standards. It was just an option. And so now we're kind of we're putting in standards um around it and how we want to treat it and then adding that low barrier navigation um that we had previously discussed because it's supposed to be allowed and then mixed use. Um, again adding it because it needs to be allowed in mixed use and commercial.

Here is where you see the change. So remember um if you know this or not um emergency shelters, you had to identify at least one zone in your city in which you are permitted by right to have an emergency shelter. Um, in our housing element, we identified that we would change the number of beds to 30. So, that's the change that you see here. So, I'm not changing whether it's permitted or or a use permit. I'm just changing the number of beds that would be permitted by right in our public zone. So, that's what that changes. All right. Emergency shelters. The only change here was what we had discussed in regards to parking providing that provision in there. Adding a new uh section on lowberry navigation centers. What are they? Um What is use by right applicability? Um we are going you know again has to be permitted by right. So what does that mean? Um and what our requirements are under the law. So just kind of just setting instead of having to go to the government code every time, we're kind of setting it here and we'll have to amend it if as the government code changes. Um, which should I do, but hopefully not as much as they do the AD ordinance.

And then these are the areas. Um, again, this is supposed to be for individuals that are experiencing homelessness. And so we want to make sure that they're getting connected to services that they get logged within our um homeless management information system and then also the coordinated entry system. These are programs in which um the um regional approach to homelessness they utilize um to keep track of individuals. And so we want to make sure that any kind of low barrier navigation center is documenting people that are coming in and receiving services and getting them um logged. I would say um and then also compliance um with how we approach homelessness. The other addition um is employee housing. We didn't have any standards around agricultural um employee otherwise I would have modified that. So I'm adding a new employee housing section. This is um what I actually had in my last jurisdiction that I had prepared. Um, and so I brought it to here and I had worked with it on it with a housing attorney to make sure it was compliant at that time. Um, the only difference is I found um provisions for trailers in another jurisdiction that I thought was applicable here. It's a conversation that I've had um with a agricultural

um employee housing advocate about the ability to actually have trailers or be able to move their RVs um as temporary workers move from sight to sight um and allow that because technically most housing when we say we're going to provide housing, we don't really allow any kind of temporary use and partially it's just because we don't know where the sewage is Um, and so this provides provisions in that you're going to use a temporary trailer and things like that of identifying what the means are of uh sewage placement and things like that. Basically, I would call it nuisance abatement um type approach. So again um defining what the accessory how an employee housing seven or more would be considered an accessory use is in um these circumstances um it's going to be actually occupied by agricultural employees. It's temporary permanent structures that contain the qualified uh employee. um and it will meet our setbacks, our lot coverage, heights and development standards act um that are applicable to the zone in which it is located. So trying to still keep our regular standards but um they would be allowed as an accessory use. Any questions around this area?

I do have one question. Sure. How much of this is uh optional for us to make decisions on versus basically prescribed by state law? And if it's prescribed by state law, do we need to kind of go through this or is this more something that you could basically say, I've consulted with the legal staff and we are in accordance with. I'm just trying to understand what you're looking for from us.

So, if there's questions about some of this, the there are things like in here the the temporary trailer, we don't have to allow temporary trailers, that's fine. Um, we can be very spec, you know, we can be more um on a case by case basis as something comes up and allow things. Um, it was just if somebody does have a temporary trailer, staff has the uh information to help provide them guidance. So, this would be something that you could appine on.

It would at least it would be helpful to me. I'm not sure about the rest of the members to to kind of have almost a list of here's the things that you have the right to kind of make a decision on and here's a whole bunch of stuff that is just prescribed because I'm frankly getting lost obviously in the minutia here.

Yeah, there's a lot in it. It's meaty. Um so low barrier. It's just basically it is what it is. The code says it. We're just adding a little bit of language um that staff's recommending. Um that's why I'm saying are there any questions? employee housing. Most of these are set by state law. It's probably why we never had anything in here. It's just always helpful for staff to have um some standards around it. That's why I was saying we're just going to apply we're just going to state it in the code that we're going to apply what what that zone says. Just kind of helps make some clarifications. Um it's really for your information. It's for to help us, but also if there's questions from you guys, if you do not, you know, I can as I go through it, I'll be more specific. So, the temporary trailers, this is um an option to include in the ordinance if you want to. Staff recommends that we do. Um, if there's any questions around that, um, just to let you know, I'm making some edits where it'll be, um, changing it from agricultural worker just for consistency to agricultural employee. And again, these are mostly just clarifications. Single room occupancy. This is where you have the most leniency on what you can do. We have to allow it. What is it that we want to allow? So

yeah, I have a comment on the highlighted, you know, just to put out there and it was kind of in line with the question I asked you. I mean, I would think that it sounds like it's pretty well defined by both our current code in terms of the requirements of setbacks and um F and site coverage and what's in the code um with regard to the room size. So, I don't personally think we need to make it any more specific. So, that's one thing that I would offer to the group.

Commissioner Bernett. Well, I don't I don't have a specific response to that, but I was going to ask the question. Let's assume you have a uh single room occupancy home that uh has six rooms and six residents. What's the implication for the parking requirements? I mean all of a sudden now we have the potential for six or eight vehicles at least. What and there's obviously implications of that. Um how does it compare to the parking requirements? In other words, we require a covered parking for residential uses of some sort. um unless the garage gets used for an ADU in which we have no covered parking requirement. I mean there's all these contradictions of the law. But I'm getting to the point about about parking. So you're saying for example in this case you are allocating one half parking space for each bed. So, yes, we already have a group quarters um parking standard and it just didn't specifically say single room occupancy, but it already had boarding houses and as we know those are very similar things

and so the addition of that term, but then also that if a unit is provided for an on-site manager, so remember the 10 or more that that that they need one space. What's the what's the logic of a half space? So, I mean, people don't have half cars, so

No, they don't have half cars, but um I would venture to say that a lot of um individuals that are going to live in rooming houses or group quarters have limited um income in some cases and may not they may be sharing cars with other individuals in maybe in that shared quarters. Um they may not have their own they may be using public transit um there and that I think is what the that standard is based on. Um technically that's our same standard for seniors for senior housing is one half is one half space per space per room

and um you know I I as part of the discussion having worked on a single room occupancy conversion of motel and the um people who actually lived in those units because of how small they are were primarily elderly very limited income people and also people who did not have cars. They just simply did not have them because they couldn't afford them. Um and it provided a a means for them to have a roof over their head basically. Um, I do think that from a density standpoint, the boarding house kind of three room, one unit is is a clever way of dealing with the idea of how to convert a single family house into um a quote unquote boarding house because essentially that is what it's becoming. It's got a common bathroom, common facilities, and they all have essentially a bedroom. Um, so I'd be interested in that because the law specifies 150 to 500 square feet, which is pretty big range actually in terms of square footage. Um, you know, it's the the difference between 450 square feet, so a single room by the law, or 1500 square feet, three 500 foot rooms. So to me um addressing the density element is interesting but what's the criteria for um square footage of rooms because I find the 1500 square feet of three as three rooms to be not really the intent of a single room occupancy.

So um taking a step back. Um that's not the law. Those are those are things that you can modify modify 150 is building code, right? Um 500 um in my last jurisdiction, the reason why we put 500 um was because if you had a kitchen and a and a bathroom in your room um then that

Yeah. It's a one bed. Yeah. becomes the studio kind of look would be the 500. Um the um they can be even smaller. So it could be 300 square feet, 350. It just comes into play when you start adding those other components into a room, right? Um so that's where that flexibility was in. But 500 is large, but it could be that's that's something that's flexible for you. And also what is a single room occupancy? What's the intent of it? Am I It's not The intent isn't to create an apartment building, right? It it's to create a shared living

living environment that allows people of minimal means to have a roof over their head who share common facilities typically.

And so allowing 500 square feet to have those facilities in it turns it into an apartment and and in my mind not a single room occupancy. So maybe that's the discussion for the what is the comfortable threshold for a bedroom sitting area counter that might have a microwave on it. Um, and you know, in my mind, a maximum of 250 square feet is plenty for that. And so then how many of those equal a single unit? Is it five or six or you know anyway because I do think that the density approach is a way of maintaining scale where these can happen. I don't think we're going to end up with a whole bunch of them but it's good to now that we're required to have this in the code to address it. Can I just add to that for just a second? So the SRO is not required to have the rest of the shared facilities, right? They're just required to have the room or do they have to have

they have to have the shared facilities? Do they have to have a kitchen? Yes, they do. Okay, thanks. Not in the room, but yeah, in the building, right? And then it's a dwelling that's considered a dwelling. So,

so the um in this section right here, the single room occupancy housing units, this is where it says this is the unit size. It needs to have bathroom facilities. It needs to have a kitchen. Um, and then each room should have a closet. Um, and then the housing facility itself is the common area. Laundry, um, cleaning, trash. We're trying to deal with all those components that would go into a facility. But, but doesn't say kitchen. It does up here. But that was talking about in the room, right?

It can. So, what it's saying that An SR unit is not required to but may contain partial or full kitchen facilities. So see I say the lesson. Yeah. So yeah

I I think that the I think that the kitchen thing much like the ADU that's the determination of what an ADU is, right? um is the is the trigger of SRO to kitchen I mean to apartment and we should not include the kitchen in the SRO. I think we should maintain SRO's as having common facilities. Um that's just my take on it. I want to distinguish between an apartment and an SRO. That's my intent in terms of talking this way. Um because I think if they do get built, they're satisfying the intent of the state law and will create smaller scale individual units for people who are really in need of that.

Yeah. I mean and and I mean I'm um supportive of of really refining the size of the rooms. Certainly these are kind of like dorm rooms. So people could have a little refrigerator or something like that, but it doesn't constitute a full kitchen facility. Yeah. And and also in terms of potential conversion of a home to an SRO as you were talking about.

Yeah. I I mean it also kind of is consistent with that as well. So I would be supportive of um reducing the upper limit minimum, you know, at least having a minimum unit size and um you know, and I'll defer to an architect um of a reasonable size for a room,

you know, and then the tangent was we that I got off on was parking, right? So, a single family house has to have one covered parking place period done in the city of Sonoma. It doesn't matter how many people live in that house. So um so I think you know parking is parking and I think the conversion of a house into a single family or um single room occupancy similar to what was traditionally considered a boarding house is should just be allowed to have that happen under state law. But we should confine it to about I think a maximum I think the maximum should be 250 square feet. That's just my feeling. 50 by code because that's the minimum sleeping facility or minimum room size um for a sleeping facility and then 200 as the maximum because that gives you a little bit of room to have a closet, have a um have a counter that you can use, you know.

Did you say 200 or 250? I think 250 is so as a Before I move on from the 250 discussion as a commission, don't not voting on it, just feelings. Good. Okay. Yeah. I I personally joined in that thought process too with a 250 cap. But then how is that going to impact number of units for density purposes?

That's Yeah, that was going I was going back up. I was just So four 250 is 1,000 square feet. So every four units is 1,000 square feet. Um, so is it eight units that makes a dwelling unit? Is it six or is it four that counts as a dwelling unit towards density? You know, traditional traditional single family homes in traditional neighborhoods that were converted into boarding houses are on the single family house model. Three, four bedroomedroom maximum, right? With common living areas and kitchens. Can't you just let the F take care of that?

Okay. Well, that's good. It's just a discussion. Yeah. So,

so um so that's what's on the table. So, it's sounding like we don't want to consider a single room occupancy housing unit a dwelling unit for purposes of density. So, I am deleting unless I see more discussion on that component. Okay. Nope. Okay. Then the density um just so that it's clear because we want to make sure that it's clear moving forward after we all have moved on that we are density standard shall not apply to single room housing occupancy period we're not going to give it a limit that's what I'm seeing hearing okay thanks All right. The other comment that we had is in regards to kitchen. Everybody concur with moving kitchen to the common housing facility.

Yes. Okay. And I just need to clarify something. So, let's say I own a house that's got four bedrooms in it and I decide I want to rent them all out. And um do I is this provision essentially by right? In other words, I can put up a sign and on my front door that says room for rent and I don't have to go to the city for any permits or anything. Right. So, in a single family home, less you know, if you're just renting your room, we don't regulate that. You can rent You can rent your rooms. Right now, we're talking about um an actual business.

Well, I'm that's why I'm saying let's say I decide to that I've got four bedrooms. I'm going to rent them all out. Uh do I have to do anything? No. No. I can just put up a sign room for rent and and think, you know, back be like be like an old, you know, Donna Reed movie or something. Exactly.

Yeah. Okay. Um, sorry, I need to put kitchen before I forget the kitchen. All right. So, kitchen. It's okay.

I'm just wondering when one rents out a room under a single room occupancy provision. Um, do tenant what how do the tenants rights laws pertain in terms of eviction and and all of the other processes that have now come to the four in terms of tenants rights protections? Okay. Is someone renting out rooms in a single room occupancy uh structure subject to all the rules and regulations of renters's rights and protections?

Yes. Even a hotel if you if a hotel rents for more than 29 days, they are subject to the tenant rights.

Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I just modified this really quickly that saying a full kitchen includes a sink, refrigerator, stove, range, or oven. Partial kitchen, well, we don't need a partial kitchen definition. Um, and that common kitchen facility shall be provided within the project for every 10 units or portion thereof. Um, or have at least one full kitchen per floor. Does that make sense?

More than 10 units, you need more than one kitchen. Um, no. That that if you have 10 units or less that you need at least one common kitchen, but yes, if it's more than 10, you're going to need more than one common one more than one space to use. How many was in your project that you did? I've always wondered this. Huh? And the project that you did, how many kitchens did you have? It was it was a small one-story. It was in Berkeley on university. It was just a one-story motel. It probably had 18 rooms and there were there were two two. Yeah.

So, yes, it's for every 10 units a portion. So, if there's 12, there's two kitchens. And if you have two floors of a total of 10 units, you need one kitchen on each floor. Um, yes, because you're going to need one per floor. Why is that? Just the way it's written. Doesn't have to be. Yeah, I I would propose that that not be included in terms of requiring per floor. Thoughts, feelings from the rest? You're saying if there's a single unit on the second floor and nine are below, why is the one entitled to a kitchen?

Or Yeah. Or even if there's five units and five units and one could It seems like one kitchen per 10 units. Okay. If you got to walk a floor to go get there, oh well. So, right now, that's the way it's written for all the different types of shared facilities is that it would be like a kitchen and the laundry would be on each floor. Um, and for every 10 units is how it's written. If that's not a specificity that we care for and let people just do whatever they want to do, but we want to make sure at least there's one per 10 units. That's fine with me.

Oh, go for it. Yeah, I I think the simplification and saying in one, you know, I think 10's a good benchmark, one kitchen for 10 units and not not have any u triggers in there regard to floor. All right, moving along. Again, uh 10 or more units is going to require management um to be on site. That's it. 10's our special number in this ordinance. If you didn't see that, it can change, but that's our little special number.

May I ask a question of that? Is there clarity about whether the manager is living in one of the units or has a separate apartment or does that matter? It doesn't matter. Okay. It's just that they have a dedicated space.

I lived in the dorms when I was a kid. My dad was the resident manager. Um, again, parking. You put it in below accessibility. Just making sure it's clear that it needs to be accessible. And then the parking. And that's it. That's the end of the ordinance. Wow. Isn't that great? Thank you. I guess we open it up now to public comment. Sure.

The dieards in the audience, would anyone like to make comments on this section? And seeing no, I'll close it to public comment. Um, there has been a request for a a short recess at the end of this section. We take one now. Um, what is the real time? 7:53. 7:53. So, five minutes. Um I don't think we have to do we have to take any action this one. Yes. I'm asking if So you're wanting to take a break at the end of this item. Yes.

Yeah. So I'm asking um with these changes uh that you would vote and approve or recommend approval by city council with the modifications that you discussed tonight. So move. Do we need a motion? Yes, we need a motion. Second. Now with roll call. Yes. Commissioner Willers. Yes. Commissioner O'Neal. Yes. Commissioner Barnett. I. Commissioner Nent. I. Commissioner Latimer. Yes. Vice Chair Wyrick. Hi. Chair Donbach. Yes. Youth member Peterson? Yes. The motion passes unanimously.

Wonderful. And now we will take a fiveminut break. Top of the hour. Thank you.

the planning commission session and move on to items for discussion which tonight is 5.1 a study session to discuss amendments to an ordinance of Sonoma Municipal Code Title 18 sign and display advertising and recommendations for adoption of amended language. So, I'll turn it over to you, Jacob.

Great. Uh, good evening, commissioners. I am associate planner Jacob Dunn. So, we will be talking a little bit about the draft sign ordinance tonight. This is, I believe, the third study session. At the last study session, we didn't dig too deep into it. Instead, we kind of uh decided that we're going to do an ad hoc and discuss some of the items in the ordinance and then maybe work through that a little bit and then come back for a study session. So here we are to kind of go through what we talked about in the ad hoc and some of the changes have been made. The way I'm going to treat this is I'm going to go between every topic. I have a slide for each topic and I'll kind of discuss some of those changes and potential changes that we can make from here and then I'm hoping to get a little bit of um you know a discussion going and some agreement as to how we want to see changes made. Uh so dive in. We will be talking through some of this updated language. We'll talk through some of the new language. Uh some of this will also regard the historic district and objective standards there. A sign program. Uh temporary signs, variances, electronic signs, eliminate signage, and then just the general sign standards. So it's kind of a lot. Um we'll see what we get through. So with the updated language uh one of the things that we did was we updated the incidental signs. There was some confusion in the uh definition behind that. So we updated that to be consistent for all zones. Um and this is specifically meant to be used for addressing like name plates um or just an address just standard stuff that you'd find on a property um but it's not necessarily to advertise a business. So this standard was kind of um just meant to address like if you have someone with a doctor, like if they have a doctor name on a door or something like that, that's what incidental signs are meant to address. And that standard

is set at three square feet. We did receive a comment from Bob Sanders. So, uh, when we did created the ad hoc, it was Commissioner Latimer, Commissioner O'Neal, and then a third party, which is Bob Sanders, who is in the sign business and has a little bit of knowledge behind that. So, one of the suggestions there was to update that to be five square feet for incidental signs. Uh, currently the code is set at three square feet. Um, one of the other things is for exemptions. Um, I separated that out because it was kind of mixed in with the other language. So, it's a little bit easier to locate with that. Uh, we updated the permit review from design review to planning commission since that uh, design review commission has been kind of changed in the way they review things. uh updated off- premise signs so that we can make sure that there's permission from property owners if they are going to place an off-remise sign. So this is specific for businesses that don't have a street frontage. Um so that's for that. And then we added fluorescent colors as a new language to kind of add clarity to that term which is specifically for like high visibility colors that you can see during the daytime. Um we also made some changes to multiface signs and standards for measuring those signs. There is some comments regarding that which we'll kind of get into a little bit later. Um and then updates to external and internal illuminations for requiring dimming. Um that was something that I felt uh you know seems like an interest in the community in terms of wanting signs to be dimmed after hours. Um it was something we discussed as well. And then multiolor LED and electronic message signs. So this is something we will need to discuss as well. We'll kind of get into that. Um, but they're different than internal and external elimination in the sense that they're more digital. Um, we also made some updates to sign maintenance and enforcement to just

reflect the correct procedures for doing that. And then historical plaques. So, we updated that to allow a larger signage for those as well. And then along with historical plaques, uh, I think actually I will be getting into that later, too. So, those new new language that we added was for non-commercial residential signs. Um, this was basically added to address signage on residential properties that aren't intended for commercial purposes. Um, that was something that came up with ad hoc was trying to address people on their properties that just want to put up something about like home sweet home or I don't know, just anything you might think of for non-commercial. Um and so that's something else that might need to be discussed as to sizing for those. Uh some other new language is for barber poles which has been added uh as a separate exemption and it's currently exempt at 3 feet tall and 10 feet in wide which I don't know what the standard for barber poles really is to be honest but it was in the cotas that way. So

yes I

so there was that um and that can be discussed if we want to change the sizing on that as well. Extra electronic message signs was clarified in the code as well just so that it can c capture what that really is um in terms of digital signage and commemorative signs has been added with the historic plaques. So this will be um signs that basically kind of honor someone rather than honoring the place. Um and that was also discussed during that in the ad hoc. So that was added in there. So one of the topics that came up in the ad hoc was trying to wrap our heads around what kind of language should be included for the historic district. Um currently the way it's written is it's somewhat subjective. Uh there's these findings that you see here in front of you, these three findings uh that need to be made for signs in the historic district. There's not so much objective standards in this code though for that area. So some of the optional objective standards that I've thought of is requiring um or having required or prohibited materials. Um this could be saying that signs have to be made out of wood or they have to be made out of certain certain things. uh also lettering and graphics. Uh it could also include color color restrictions or prohibiting certain sign types. So we have a list of sign types. We could say which ones of those we say could or shouldn't be in the historic district. And then mounting and installation requirements. So that could be something of uh it can't go into stone or it can't go into specific materials on a building. So I'm going to stop on this topic here because we have a project this earlier that we talked about in terms of signs and the historic district. Um, so I think it's important to kind of decide

if we are going to create a section for historic the historic district that we we gather what those standards should be. So we know that we just approved a lighted sign. Um, there was a size standard to that. we could change size standards for those um or they can be consistent with what our general science standards are. Um other than that, I don't know specifically what we should make as objective standards. um looking through our current historic district standards or uh what you'd look like what you would look for uh for development standards, we don't have anything that kind of reflects what you would see for signs. So, I'm just going to kind of let this be I'm going to open it up for discussion at this point for historic district.

Yes. Uh Commissioner Bar.

Well, first let's clarify at least for me um given the historic district or in the nature of historic districts. Um I if I understand it, we have more discretion for example in in um making decisions about land use applications or houses. Um, would it be fair to say that the use of subjective language in the in a sign regulations in a historic district would also be acceptable. In other words, the state is not requiring us to have objectivity in sign standards like it's requiring us to have objectivity in land use decisions.

It may be subjective. We I that's part of the reason why I believe that it's been written the way it is now. Yes. Okay. Um in terms of what was brought up during the ad hoc and some of the discussions we've had um having objective standards seems like an interest. So I wanted to bring that up as a point.

Okay. And I'm not I'm not finding objectionable the idea of having objective standards alongside subjective standards. I certainly wouldn't want to um in the historic district and and that's what we're talking about. I certainly would not want to have it come down to a a quote unquote set of objective standards that would rely on a ministerial approval. I think the historic district needs a higher level of scrutiny. And I think that subjective standards in the historic district are appropriate.

Okay. So the historic district when you talk about the historic district do you mean the overlay district which is quite large almost the entire city or the plaza area? Well in this particular case I was thinking of the plaza area.

Right. And I think that's really important for us to clarify because I agree with you in that regard, but I don't agree that it should have the boundary of the historic overlay district. So, um maybe the plaza district is the better way to describe the standards that um Commissioner Barnett began to speak about. Um and I do agree with you that there should be a different set of standards for that area. Yeah, I mean I like I agree with that. Um I I think maybe what we're talking about here is is that plaza area and I think there are probably things that we could objectively say we don't want. For instance, as an example, um LED signs, right? um or digital signs or and we just heard today that we would prefer not to have lighting in the evenings um after a certain time. So, um I mean those are two things that I can think of in terms of in terms of I think your categories are a really good start. Um because those are typically the things that we think about. Um, and then again with regard to color restrictions, I don't know how we would put that language in, but with but maybe we need to articulate the values of what we're trying to um exclude and not make it as subjective. for instance, um you know, colors that are consistent with um I don't I don't even know with, you know, typically historical colors or I mean, how do you say that? How do you not keep pink on the plaza? I I don't know how to say that.

The ice cream door, the pink door. You remember that debacle? That was several years ago. But but the question for I think we need to get at is how do we create language um that gives people some gives the staff and gives u others guidance and and I think that's why we have to retain the subjective standards

uh for the plaza. I I I think that you know this issue of whether something fits the character of the plaza is a subjective topic and uh and I don't think we should avoid it and I don't think we should avoid it as a criteria. I think that it's um going to prompt differences of opinion. Some people may feel uh uh panone yellow 180 is not the right color for the plaza. Uh but uh but there will be mixed opinion about these things and ultimately the decision will be made by a majority in a and much as we had a discussion tonight and one of the commissioners voted no on a decision we were making that's the process we use and that's fine with me

the center what I I can live with that democratic process in applying a subject effective standard to a unique situation in our city.

I'm just questioning the and I was on the ad hoc committee and was probably the one that was pushing this a little bit. Um just the ability of businesses to be able to plan and make decisions. And to me, we we have to be able to give and maybe it is exclusionary as opposed to inclusionary so that they can at least say I can't do this, I can't do that, I can't do this. So, I'm going to try to present something to you that doesn't hit those hot buttons, but allows me because we do need to find a way to be able to allow businesses to be o get open in a reasonable period of time. And when signage becomes one more thing that has to be and it's important to businesses to have effective signage in order to be successful, it it just adds more to the delay in getting open. And as I look at the plaza right now, it's hurting, right? There's a lot of empty spaces that are on that plaza. There are businesses that are not being overly successful. We need to find some way to be able to um encourage the the the the ability to get these guys open on a reasonable basis. So I I understand the the the desire to uh keep the plazas a special place. I agree with the subjectivity, but I do think we need to be able to provide some guidelines, some guideposts to

Yeah, I mean I I agree too. So we have signage criteria. we have illumination criteria and um I I I think we should maybe have some restrictions. So we certainly don't want to see billboards in the plaza um and in defining that area. So I would I would ask for some obvious restrictions of things that are consistent with the sense of place of the plaza and then the other other things might be able to be subjective.

Question. First question, do you want all signs in the prod to have to go before the planning commission or can there be some signs that ministerally approved? Question one. I I think that there should be a twotrack system. And the two-track system is kind of a very narrow standard color palette, standard size, standard type of sign that allows that sign to move forward quickly. And if someone wants to step outside of those relatively tight boundaries, then it's a discretionary review. So they can have any sign that they want as long as it gets approved, but they can also quickly move through the process by and that's going to require more work on our part because we're going have to come with a color palette and or on the um historic review um committee. They'll have to come up with standard color palette that's an acceptable broad enough color palette that will allow someone to create a sign. Um, does that to the experts in the audience, does that seem reasonable?

So, I have this dual

Wellander and Dimler got me on the Sonoma League of Historic Preservation. So, I've got that side and I represent, you know, applicants. I have my own feelings. Um, so, um, this this corner, uh, Larry always loves the, uh, the address signs, you know, right in here. But this is a beautiful corner, but I always thought that they put a, uh, like a brush metal background on this cool historical building. I thought maybe that's the wrong material. Uh around the corner is a cool little um neon sign at Lacassa. I think it's great, but maybe neon signs need to be reviewed. The El Paso one I'm not sure is good or bad. I don't I don't see it on sometimes. Um but going down uh Kappo uh has a backlit sign. I don't know when or how that got approved, but I think it's very attractive and glows at night just fine. So it's it's a real individual as an architect, you know, you want freedom to be creative and you don't want to overregulate this stuff. So I kind of agree having the the standard and then they if they take it out, they can have it reviewed by uh a staff member that

Yeah. And I and I agree with you like for like the Capo sign and for the other signs that you talked about and that is I don't think those people would have a problem coming in front of the design review committee to get their sign approved, right? Because for them it's an aesthetic decision. It's not a

how quickly can I get into this workspace condition, right? Um, but I also value the fact of being able to move through the process more easily. And so, um, so I think we're saying exactly the same thing. I don't think that it's going to stop those individual signs from being in place. I do think that illuminated signs should be reviewed in the in the Plaza district. Maybe not everywhere in the city, but in the Plaza district, they should be reviewed. I mean, there's there's always change on that plaza. So,

Mary's changed their logo. They've talked about just simplifying it. I don't think that has to be a big review if it's done tastefully and simple. Um, there's the empty building next to Chase Bank. I did this beautiful sign for the liquor store years ago, but um what that will be, should that get reviewed or not. Uh there's the new restaurant, Amaya. I don't know what's happening with that, but we, you know, we're always changing. And so,

I I know and and that's what that's kind of what I'm talking about is is in the two-track system, there's a track for administrative review as long as you operate in the boundaries of that, which is are more confining. Um, you can get your sign quickly. If you have a more expressive sign program, then that's a reviewed program just simply because of the because of the nature of the plaza.

And and I don't want to make it beyond the plaza necessarily, but there are some beautiful homes on Broadway. And you know, uh, Dimler points out that uh, any home over 45 years is historic, which I don't know about that, but I was driving by um, this is a little irritating. It's uh hold on the um hold on that the psychic building looks historical to me and they plopped a big red and white sign on there which they change owners quite often at that place. So I don't know how you regulate some things that to me are blatantly wrong. If it was green on white, if it was more, you know, part of the building and the architecture, it would be okay to get it administratively done or however, but there are other buildings that are historic that are getting I think they're redoing the uh you know where the auto parts place, they're redoing that building or there's we it's pretty cool that we have some historical buildings flopped around besides the historic area. So

advocate of the variety also. Yeah. I don't want it to be something that is so restrictive that everything looks identical to each other. That's not that's not what we're trying to do.

So if I may through the chair. Uh so it's what it's sounding like is that we're thinking two historic structures as well as historic district which we're also mainly worried about the plaza retail overlay districts. So if the direction is to consider historic structures to be included in that category for review for uh further review, discretionary review and also just to clarify too, the majority of these signs just across the board for all sign types are going to have administrative review. uh there's going to be an administrative permit which is they won't escalate to a desk discretionary review unless there's u unless they're asking to do something that's beyond what the standards are.

I I actually have a question about um historic buildings. Okay. So again we are the definition is 45 years and so there are many buildings most of the homes in this city are historical. So, are we talking about historically significant or just historical buildings? Because I I do think we we could go down a rabbit hole of get of houses from the 70s again that may not fall into that.

Yeah, I I only mention it because um specifically like the the psychic building, that one's not in the Plaza retail overlay district. There's a other buildings that aren't as well that have been mentioned. So, um, you know, if we're going to focus on just the plaza retail overlay, then that's what we can do. Um, but I guess it's kind of up to the commission as to whether what level of review goes into Well, I think what one thing I did hear is that we definitely want something for the the plaza. Okay. Um, and I think it's another conversation around the overlay. Um,

well, I don't know if I'm unique among this particular group, but when I first moved to Sonoma, my wife and I, it was because we bought a bed and breakfast in a half a block from the plaza. It was a historic building. It dated back to 1881. It had all the research done on it. And um as a business owner, because we bought it as an ongoing business and intended to run it as a business, we went into it with our eyes open knowing that what we could do both in terms of the paint colors on the building and the signage was uh subject to approval. And um and if we wanted to make changes, we had to go before the appropriate commissions to do it, which we did in a number of instances because that was the nature of the property. Now, um we knew that before we made our offer on it, we knew it after we made our offer on it, and we knew it once we owned it. And I think that I don't have that much of a problem with the fact that to operate a business in Soma in either on a historic property or in the historic uh plaza comes with a whole set of rules that are different than operating a business in some other part of the community or not operating a business in a historic house. And I didn't necessarily like the decisions that were made when I went before the appropriate commissions to ask to do something. Sometimes what I want to do was denied. Sometimes I was given a different set of design

instructions. For example, at the time there was the architectural review commission that needed to opine on our addition to the structure of a owner's quarters where we would have something to live. So, but that that's that was the deal. Um so I think that while it's okay to uh think about ways of not making the process inordinately ownorous. The fact is is that if you don't want to be subject to a special set of rules for a given business or a given property, don't buy it. Nobody's nobody's forcing you to do anything. This is this is this is the deal. You come to Soma and you and you want to open business on the plaza, you're going to be subject to a set of rules and and we can look at ways of making a more streamlined process if you just follow the basic rules and and that's fine with me. That's why I say the objective standards isn't something that I have a problem with. But I think ultimately that if you go beyond it, then it becomes a matter of subjective opinions about whether you're uh withholding and and sustaining and preserving things like the historic character of a street or a building or a or an area. And uh and if that's too tough for people to to to swallow, don't they they definitely shouldn't get into business in that particular location. I mean, that's the deal.

Commissioner, what

I think the solution here is the the two-track system much like we handled the streamlining uh of the major use um major and minor design, right? And and and really look at what the our triggers are for moving you for escalating you to the to the full discretionary review of a body like ours. Um, you know, maybe some of those things could be backlit signage. Um, maybe um, you know, neon signage could be triggers for that major. Um, but I'd like to see there be some language about inkind replacement um or substantially similar and I don't know I mean that similar the word similar evokes a you know object or subjectivity but there might be a way to thread that needle to where some of that can be handled administratively um and and you know be uh we can be selective about what what our triggers are for for an inbon hearing if you will.

Yeah. So I'll kind of go off of what you just said. Um there's we do have standards in there for changes of copy and that's allowed um without a permit that if it's you know similar in nature it's it's allowed. Um, and I am getting from what I'm hearing, it sounds like the direction is to kind of come up with some of those objective standards that can create that two-way system. So, um, I'll go ahead and I'll, you know, work through that and that'll be kind of, uh, I'll bring something back that kind of addresses that. So, I'll go on to the next. Jacob, I'm sorry. Just so this might be the only place that we're talking about the plaza area specifically or do you have other This would be

Currently, we're Yeah, we're talking about the Plaza retail. So, what came up with the approval of the BFA site to me was um the issue about lighting on the plaza. And I'm not sure that when the actual business closes the right parameter in terms of when the light should go on or off. I mean, having an active looking plaza into the evening hours when some businesses are open. I'm not sure why other businesses have to close their lights off because it almost actually looks to me less appealing rather than more appealing. And I'm wondering if we could consider something like, you know, all commercial lights on the plaza need to be extinguished by a time period 11:00, 11:30, whatever that number is, as opposed to saying an hour after that particular business is closed. Just a thought. So, um, what I have seen in regards to that is basing it on sunset. Um, so it's however much time after dusk that you do dimming or shut off,

but there'll be certain businesses, the restaurants and the bars are going to be open late, right? So,

and there may Yeah. Um, and currently and so it sounded like there might be interest in no lighting in the in the evenings for this specific area. Um, but we'll talk about it um later as well as some of the updates that I made to illumination just in general was requiring a reduction in brightness by 30% in the evenings. Um, and so that could be something else that could be considered for this area. Um, it just depends on how restrictive we want to be or you know what the standards would be for the prod versus just general sign standards. Yeah. I mean, um I I think I hear what you're saying. I think what we're going for is um not blaring lights, right? So, we talking about welcoming lights. So, maybe it is a percentage. Maybe it is, you know, till until midnight. I think those are all reasonable things to to bring back um to this body. Um, I' I'd also like to bring in the banners. Like we we had a consent calendar for banners and I think those I would think those could largely be ministerial. Um, es especially a design review associated with it, but uh I mean I think there are probably some pretty restrictive guidelines around the banners. So if that's something else that can be taken into consideration.

So yeah, we can touch on that later as well. Um it's in it's included in temporary signage. Uh there's time limits around it and so we can base it off that as well. Um and then just specify um I guess where they can be placed and how large. So um but that is included in temporary signage banners are in there. I think the only other thing would be the language you know that's presented. Okay. The coolest whole the best sign on the whole plaza

the best sign on the plaza is our theater which is beautiful neon and needs to be on right. So there's an exception. So it's it's very I don't think we have too much lit bad signage anyway on the plaza. I don't any Yeah. I think what we're missing is kind of our value system of what we want the plaza to to be and look like. And I think until we determine what that is and again maybe the ad hoc can help with that is what are we trying what do we ultimately want it the feel of the plaza to be and then from that will come all of these objective right

um designs. So, um I will take into consideration the banners and whether it should be how we should address it versus temporary versus what we spoke about tonight on the consent calendar. Um I'll have to look into that more and just kind of think about how that language should be written out um to differentiate the two. So the next thing um that I know will be take some discussion uh is the sign program. So, a sign program is really meant for business properties that have multiple businesses on it um that all need signage and you know to reduce clutter. A sign program is usually one of those methods to reduce that clutter and create a criteria that basically all the uh businesses need to meet. Um the way the draft language is is that it's based on two or more businesses which would trigger a sign program and any individual business that applies for a sign inside on that property would initiate that process. Um there's no particular increase or special allowance with the sign program as it stands now. Um but optional updates to this standard could be increasing the amount of businesses that triggers a sign program. That was something we discussed is what should trigger a sign program. Should it be two businesses? Should it be three, four, five? Um who has the responsibility of doing the program and completing that program? Um, should we consider increases to aggregate for someone that's doing a sign program for properties that are um have multiple commercial businesses on it and increasing what their aggregate allowances for wall signage or freestanding signs or monument signs. Um, and then also that's goes along too with the allowable sign area and dimensions. So like this picture here

you see with this monument sign. I don't know exactly the measurements on it, but it's most likely going to be a little bit larger than what our standard currently is for monument signs. And um but that standard's based on one single business putting up a monument sign. So I'm going to also open this up to kind of consider what these optional updates are and whether we believe that a multi- uh commercial site should have two or more businesses to be able to trigger this program and who that kind of responsibility falls on. when it's triggered.

Well, my gut reaction is two is too few um to trigger a monument sign or a sign program. Um I think three is probably a more realistic threshold for me. you know, a lot of it is the context, right? A lot of it is what where is the building, what is the building, and um how is the sign program for the different businesses either on the building or in the site around the building. And so, you know, the advantage of having a sign program is that everyone gets a sign. It's got a single location for lack of not disparaging signage but creating signage without creating litter in the visual environment. And you know and I think the monument signs like this do a good job of providing both things. Um they tidy up the signs for individual businesses. they bring them into a common denominator for typically a larger building that has multiple tenants. Um, you know, in a building that has that is a storefront on a sidewalk, those are going to by their very nature going to end up being um signed buildings for the most part. Um, but I wouldn't want to see a building or buildings along Napa Street for every tenant that's in that building having an individual sign on the street as you move down the road. I I just don't think that that's visually um

a correct thing to do. Um, it also makes it easier to find the property. um rather than the individual sign. So, you know what the number is, two or three or more or whatever. But um I think when there's multiple signs on a property, it should just come into a sign program of some form. If it's a building, there's a program for the building. If it's a building that primarily signage is along a roadway rather than the building, it should become a monument sign. But um I think there is value in that in terms of coordination.

Yeah, I would agree. And I also think there's a safety aspect. I mean what you know there is clutter and then you're distracted when you're driving. So I think for efficiencies I would agree. I think if um if we could have some consistency around these programs around these monument signs I think two is fine. I mean, what you're trying to do is allow someone to see the signage and not be looking around trying to figure out what's going on. So, I don't have a problem with it being two. In terms of responsibility, um I mean, that's a difficult one. Should it is it the landlord or is it the property owners? Um, I I do think there probably needs to be coordination um among the landlord and the property owners um so that um they all agree on what this signage should should look like.

Yeah. Go ahead. I'm a little confused if if the suggestion is that we only have monument signs if there's two or more businesses. Is that what we're saying?

We haven't Okay. I I'm all for monument signs for a single business as well. Um so I just want to make sure that that issue was not lost there. Um but um definitely a single monument sign for multiple businesses in a particular building I think makes the most common sense. And if just a followup to that, um, in terms of a single monument sign, let's say in a sign program, we say that there's they're restricted to one monument sign. Um, in terms of increasing that aggregate sign area or total sign area, are we thinking, this part might actually go best to Bob in terms of being able to say what sign sizes are typical for multicommercial sites. uh and how they compare to the standard. Currently,

I'm trying to think of examples. So, we did the um there's the uh where the fitness place is up across from the car wash on 12 on the right side. There's one big monument sign with some tenants on it, but uh there's the physical therapy hospital in the back. There's it's again an architectural custom need that you need to look at. So, how do you identify directional signage and ident, you know, identify these businesses when they're hidden in the back? There's the uh little shopping center that has the locksmith. Um his, you know, there's an individual tenant sign and then something on a monument. Uh there's the the sign where the uh the uh bakery is across from the library. It has three or four tenants on there which are helpful. I don't you know so and then of course this thing about the um 12 inch address numbers is getting mixed into this. So um I'm trying to think of any other uh you know let's uh the shopping center uh where Black Bear Diner is. There's some names on that. So, we need to be careful about I don't know there's I don't not everybody's on that sign. It would be impossible. So, we don't want to junk it up. But at the same time, we I thought we were talking about sign programs and I was thinking the three or more there's like the mini mart across from the high school. I don't think they need it necessary. If there's two businesses, they don't need a a sign program necessarily, but it's an old center. It needs to be updated. And there was something going on with the Matson about that. But I'm just trying to think of we have all these um we have so many kind of custom needs that each one has to have some ability

to get approved fast and not be bogged down and be practical. So I have to think about that. It's almost like we need to do a a visitation of all our different types of uses and you know how do we treat a multi- uh the blue building with the medical group in there? They ended up having me do just the address number but they used to have different tenants in there. So it's, you know, and I don't like monument signs that have, you know, eight small names. I think they're inefficient. So, it's usually the larger um square footages of the larger tenants that have the more square footage get the signs. But

before before you step away, I have a question about something you referred to, is the current process of getting signs approved in the city of Sonoma unduly burdensome? It can be. I mean, the other gentleman who was here is shaking his head. Yes. So, well, we we had a little and what and

so we had a you know, the cupcake guy took, you know, weeks to get one little sign that should have just been we we're out of we don't do that anymore. That's lovely. So, we take the sign down, rehang it. The uh building inspector waved a sign uh a building permit. You know, we've gotten smarter. Well, I'm I'm trying I'm trying to understand where is the delay is the matter of getting in front of the appropriate commission to get the approvals and therefore you know how often they meet and getting on the agenda and what the lead time is to get on the agenda or is there some other I'm trying to understand what what the burden is.

It's coming back to me now. So I mentioned to um Jennifer when she first came we used oh we used to have a schedule right if you were in by a certain date with a complete application you got to be on that month's date but then it changed and it became more discretionary when the previous city manager uh city planner came in he changed it maybe I don't know if it was co I don't know what it was but sometimes these uh applications have gotten drawn out for months And there should be before you can get in front of the commission. Yeah. I mean there's been some bad examples of that.

Okay. So that's that's one sort of burden. What are the other burdens that that have come up besides the scheduling of the hearing burden? Well, we did the marcato that took Wendy a while to review and you know it caught and you guys were charging us so much per hour to review that and it was kind of a complex important thing to do, right? But that went okay. It might have gotten delayed a meeting or two or something, but it, you know, I'm trying to think of things I've done, but the the mini mar was kind of put into advance was Christina for months. I mean it it didn't get resolved that but um most of the things go okay but uh it was good when there the architects believe this too when there was a schedule we knew that we were going to be on a certain meeting and we had to have our application in by a date and it had to be complete. So

I don't know how that's going. I haven't I think it's maybe better. We can talk to to Jacob about that. I mean, what's the what's the current operational standard that the city is using in terms of turning around, reviewing and turning around signage applications and do we have a standard as to what uh a business or an applicant can expect the timing of it is going to be? I mean, that would be based on I mean, given the signed uh permit that we heard tonight, uh I don't know how long that one took.

All right. So, couple of different things um going on. So, yes, when I got here, I'm the evil planning director that changed it. Well, it was done before you,

but it got worse under me, I guess. Um but the um it was our interim in between the the way it was was that you had a complete application. and you submitted it, it did not need to comply with the code. So some things were being approved that didn't comply and the conditions of approval said you have to comply, but I was finding they didn't comply. They were literally what had been submitted. And so there was just this miscommunication and you know conditions of approval are always fun to make sure get complied with. But regardless of that, what we try to do when we have an application submitted is to get the applicant to comply with the code and that can take some back and forth to get to the point where it's and and this is not just science. This is just in general. We want them to comply. We're trying to get them there and so that'll take a couple of back and forth until they say we're going to ask for a variance. We want the exception. we, you know, we don't want to change or we don't want to comply. What's our path forward? And that's sometimes why it's going to take longer or there's just missing information or things that we are asking for. Um, so that's what's the delay to get to a hearing, I will say. Now, if you know, we've had a couple of signs that I have done since with Bob. We did the we did the Sunflower uh cafe. It was one of those that just needed to a new sign. It looked pretty similar. It was yellow and white, which was the same colors. I think it changed from a circle to a square. Um, and then we just hung it up. Um, because it didn't need any kind of new change, same square footage, everything like that. So, that's where we were going with easy ways to simplify things. We, you know, we already do that

in other locations. the red sign that you just mentioned, it's in the location that's already identified to allow signs. So, it doesn't need a new permit because we don't regulate what goes on that sign. We regulate the structure and the things. So, if we have a sign program, that's what usually regulates, and that one does not, but if it did, we regulate what the material is, what are the colors, and so that we have that continued consistency. Um, this is a good example, not local, but of how that that would look moving um forward. Again, sign programs, if you decide it's three or more business, three or more businesses, you we need a sign program to create that consistency, that's fine. The one that you're example with the b the the bakery and the knit shop and things, those all are inconsistent signs. It's a consistent monument sign but and it's a consistent in the location but each one of those signs looks different. So that's where a sign program would dictate potentially what that looks like. Otherwise we have just we've already said okay to the monument sign and we're allowing them to just change out that portion with whatever they want. There is no sign program that help differentiate the difference between those components. the the um so going all over the place lately. We're doing you know signs online which has made it much harder in some ways because sometimes the software doesn't work. Uh you have to you need to get a hold of a human. So, in the Wellender committee that we've been on for two years to make planning and building easier, it has been it's been successful, but we and and I think it's okay that we come in and speak to Natalie or somebody that knows about the sign stuff and make

sure that they're not making an application that's going to be We had a couple applications that had three signs in instead of two, which was the rule. But um it went it you know we should have known that not to apply for that right up front. And uh like one of my things is to have three signs is okay. So you're allowed a 10 square foot sign on the building and a hanging little six foot uh six square foot and uh but I think you always have to have a window sign. So, um, sometimes we've gotten messed up where we got we had one sign and we put two little logos on the window and all of a sudden it's three signs. So, that's impractical. So,

I just want to make sure we stay on track. So, uh, we're kind of get digging into just general sign standards with u some of that. So, I think when it comes to the sign program though, the reason this this came up is because we were trying to think of if we could make this more streamlined creating objective standards that would meet that do be an administrative permit because currently it's a use permit. They would need to come to planning commission and they need approval. It's subjective. It's not based on objective standards. So, and that that's okay and it can be that way. It's just about whether the commission believes that that should be the process.

I do think we're trying to get there. I just think that we're not, you know, experienced in it. I I mean, I think what we heard today was that people are in favor of monument type signs. uh whether it's two or three I mean I think it needs to be explored but you know this concept that you just brought up Jennifer where you allowed a monument but then people could have different styles in the monument I mean I'm not I don't object to that what I think is most important is that you can read the sign and that it's not the the lettering is not uh so small that you can't read it so I think you know objectively having a a size of font that can be used so that's legible and um and if it is multiple businesses there probably is a reasonably sized height that um can go along with um being able to read those signs. Now when you have um um a large vendor and many small vendors maybe you're right all the vendors don't want to buy into this package. So that's where I think the coordination comes from. You know, whoever brings it forward um will have solicited the other people. Um but I do think I don't have a problem with there being some artistic license for each of the signed posts.

Um you you said use permit, but wouldn't it just be a regular application, not a use permit? It would be a use permit. Why would it be a use permit? That's more penalizing to the applicant, isn't it? It's more expensive and it's just a discretionary review. I mean I in in my past planning uh a use permit was more it would isn't it just a sign uh application not a use permit to the commission.

So that's where I mentioned the fact that with the sign program as it is st now it's objective standards that need to be met and findings that need to be met for it. um it doesn't have objective standards that can make it to where we can say an administrative permit can be issued because it meets XYZ. It's currently subjective which means there needs to be a discretionary review to determine whether that sign program should be approved or not.

But but I'm I'll rephrase I'll rephrase your question. The discretionary permit that would be re applied for with a signed program is the question of whether a use permit or it could be something else because a use permit, you're correct, is traditionally a lot more expensive. Ours are $12,000. Um, so that's where I think in the past it's never been a use permit. So discretionary permit. Yeah, there we go.

My previous jurisdiction called them use permits. So I apologize for that. So, we do a lot of work in a bunch of different cities and other cities I've dealt with talking about this kind of signage, they'll have restrictions on max height of 8 feet. Um, can't have more than one within 100 foot of another. So, that might be something to consider as an option. Um, I don't know a lot about the ones you're talking about here, but you know, that's just other cities that I've seen with that. Thank you. So, um, Jacob, you're hurting cats here.

I think, um, I think I got some info that I need for this. It sounds like we want three or more businesses. It sounds like the applicant, whether they're a leasey, whoever the tenant is that comes in with a new sign on that commercial property, um, you know, there are a lot of uses on commercial properties that need use permits anyways. So, they would most likely come forward and include their signage in that use permit. Uh, sorry, I keep saying use permit, discretionary permit. So, um, so it sounds like I have a little bit of direction for the master sign program or sign program. Um, and I'll just kind of I'll work through that and then we can re reconvene with that. Um, looking at time, I want to be acknowledging of it. I don't know. U there's there's plenty more to go through. So, uh, I would like to give it to the chair to decide that.

Yes, I I'll look to my colleagues. I I I think, you know, we do have a mandatory stop time, but I'll ask if if you would like to stop here with this portion of the sign program and have it come back.

So, I'm looking at I I think we'll stop here. um and you can take the information we've given you for that revision and then um continue on uh at the next possible time. Thank you for all your good work. Thank you and thank you for the comments from the public. We appreciate it your expertise. I had one. What is uh Larry? What is PMS 180? I'm just It's a yellow. A very bright yellow.

All right. Um with that, we'll um we'll con continue with the last three items on the agenda. The the first is the director comments and announcements. Um just that I hope everybody has a great holiday and that we will miss Miss Natalie very very much as she goes to another similar community in a different county. Um but that we do wish her the best and um we will have our next meeting in December. So hopefully everybody plans on attending because we will need forum.

All right. 20th I believe or the 19th something like that. Anything else? Or 18th. 18th. 19th 20th. Somewhere around there. 18th. Okay. All right. So, we'll move on to commissioner reports and comments. Any commissioner? I do have one question. Um I'm just curious about the status of the housing trust fund ad hoc. That's on me. I have not oh got them together. All right. Any other uh comments from commissioners? Uh Commissioner Hayrick,

Miss Natalie, might I say that was an expertly delivered staff report tonight, which is appropriate in light of your new role that you're walking into with how did uh director Gates term it a similar community. I you know another valley

right maybe lesser community I don't know similar community I don't know one of the two um but I think as a commission we just want to thank you for your service and uh the fact that you put up with our um various idiosyncrasies and our our demands and our needs from technology to um you know logistics and uh you know questions and and things as they came up. um you have a a talent and you're very good at your job and we're very sorry to lose you and um thank you. I appreciate it. We have a little uh a little treat here and in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll say that there were more than 11 cookies when I started this process um this afternoon. I have a uh a very food driven black lab. I can assure you that the cookies that we have here are completely edible. They're untainted. Um, I can attest to that fact. I watched this happen. Um, and they were very carefully handpicked. So, I think we might have just enough, but it's the thought that counts.

Thank you, Natalie. We'll miss you, but best of luck. I think it means the cookies were lab approved. There isn't much that isn't. That's the problem. Yeah, keep smiling. That's the best part. Meet everyone and greet everyone with a smile like you do.

She'll be saying when I was in that other place. saying at my last jurisdiction. It's going to be good to have your connection over there. And you know, it's okay for you to be there for a little while, but we hope you'll come back again.

And so, as we're passing around the cookies with that, um, do I have a motion to adjurnn? So, moved. All right. Thank you. Yeah.