Hey Sonoma businesses, if you’re going to erect a stand-alone sign – put some creativity into it.
That’s essentially what the Sonoma City Council said Monday evening, when it unanimously approved new regulations aimed at curbing the use of “generic” free-standing signs around town.
Firmly in the crosshairs of the logo legalities are A-frame signs, which are a bit too ho-hum for city signage czars. Under the ordinance, A-frames will be subject to review by the city Design Review and Historic Preservation Commission, while portable signs of a “unique design” may be approved administratively.
Kelso Barnett, chair of the design review commission, spoke at the council meeting, insisting that when it comes to signs, Sonoma’s should be held to a higher standard.
“Sonoma’s a unique place, and our signage should reflect that,” said Barnett, who called out A-frame signs as particularly “generic and pedestrian.”
City officials have been working on revisions to the sign guidelines since 2009, when the design-review commission was first tasked with updating the regulations. This latest round of revisions not only deals with A-frames, but also prohibits moving and animated signs; adds a provision for ideological and religious signs displayed within 90 days of an election; and better ensures the regulations comply with First Amendment rights.
Councilmember Gary Edwards said it’s high time Sonoma stopped signing off on staid signs.
“(The guidelines) leave enough avenues for people to be creative with their signs,” said Edwards, adding that he’d counted about 160 A-frame signs along Highway 12 in Kenwood, alone.
Though she voted to approve the new regulations, Councilmember Madolyn Agrimonti expressed concern that the revisions may “hurt merchants.”
“Well, I don’t see any of them here,” responded Edwards, about the lack of public comments opposing the ordinance.
Jeannette Fung, owner of Sox de Vine, at 450 First St. E., arrived later, saying that many merchants such as herself are unhappy with the new sign regulations, but couldn’t attend the meeting because at that hour, many are still busy at their shops.
“It just feels like the merchants were not included,” lamented Fung.
City picks up ?‘prevailing wage’
In other news from the meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a proposal to cover the costs – at a maximum of $22,000 – if state regulators deem that contracted work on the rehabilitation of the Maysonnave Cottage must meet the state “prevailing wage” requirement.
Since the developers – architect Sid Hoover and Benchmark Contractors – have balked at the possibility of the added expense, the city council voted 5-0 to pick up the tab if the residential upgrade of the historic cottage, located next to the Maysonnave House at 291 First St. E, becomes subject to the prevailing wage, an outcome city staff said was unlikely.
Chase Street Bridge project arches forward
The City Council on Monday also adopted a “mitigated negative declaration” for the Chase Street Bridge replacement project. The 5-0 approval of the resolution essentially allows the city to move forward with the project, by declaring that city officials have studied the environmental effects of replacing the Chase Street Bridge (and will take measures to mitigate them), have provided a 30-day window for public comment (none were received), and are holding a “duly noticed” public hearing on the proposed bridge project.
Councilmember Edwards commented that, as a resident of Chase Street, he’s “very familiar with the bridge, or lack of bridge, and look(s) forward to moving forward on this project.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: