[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6501989,"mediaKeyId","5653719-05b237ae781eeacbf310995fee40062f","parentId",5653719,"title","Design Review Committee reviews Part 2 of proposed sign ordinance amendments, gives staff direction on multiple sign types","audioSeconds",6779,"startMs",3090000,"endMs",9869000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653719-05b237ae781eeacbf310995fee40062f&start=3090&end=9869","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653719-05b237ae781eeacbf310995fee40062f/thumbnail_3090000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6501989/Solvang/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Design-Review-Committee-reviews-Part-2-of-proposed-sign-ordinance-amendments-gives-staff-direction-on-multiple-sign-types","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6501989-5d726b872c2aed6796e8606d3c15af0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770601100&Signature=mK9ufaG7aDHHOdbG~3o3WJu-iA~IedB79IPEovenjo7Zp-y8Viw3wkBdY1OguhgEE59FKSkur5508yogh9vu6V3kZBYb0-43-qJ6BjhJnwzhExb6Rgl5IRjj2EN4L7REvNeqb0rMI4keDAFZqdLQWnC0eI~IRrR9ngx41ykMvzulDNWU4O2gqR4SmGB4vjKxwVxzRJo2otVkScv5h3YdJ85wiwAE8n9CRHXzDDYzUta-rbrLsQbFAqDO2A4WjxEo90LXeMYDXudM6pMf5EdtZZ5koCyh17S7au2Gi7-rDCcuXejGNXO~62W7f8ljWT0Y0q2rk3EL8UeNuGqszsTzUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Solvang, CA","date","2025-08-22T02:56:25.327Z","article","Solvang’s Design Review Committee reviewed Part 2 of proposed amendments to the city’s sign ordinance on Aug. 21, 2025, focusing on permanent signage standards and a new section on murals. Rafael (staff member) walked the committee through proposed text for awning signs, directory signs, freestanding (ground) signs, outdoor display cases/menu cases, window lettering, projecting and blade signs, and special‑consideration items including murals. Committee members asked staff to refine a number of points and to return Part 3 (nonconforming signs and definitions) at a future meeting.

The meeting was discussion-oriented. Staff framed the draft as intended to streamline approvals, clarify rules and create content‑neutral objective standards; Rafael repeatedly noted the draft is preliminary and intended to gather committee direction prior to moving to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Key staff proposals and committee directions:

- Awning signs: Staff proposed a maximum letter height of 8 inches, maximum sign area measured as 1 square foot per linear foot of awning canopy (not to exceed first floor level), a minimum ground clearance of 8 feet (to the edge of the awning), and a maximum projection of up to 5 feet with required encroachment approval. Committee members accepted the concept of a 50% maximum “balance” (cloth-to-sign ratio) on awnings and confirmed awnings should count toward an applicant’s overall allowed signage area. Susan Bott (Save Our Stars Committee) commented that awnings are typically impractical to illuminate, and the committee reiterated external illumination and consistency with the California Building Code for clearances.

- Directory signs: Staff proposed replacing ad hoc menu/chalkboard language with a single “directory” sign category limited to building‑affixed installations, with a proposed maximum area of 6 square feet, external illumination only, and metal or wood materials. Committee members and a sign fabricator (Bridal, 805 Signs) recommended increasing the maximum directory area (Bridal suggested 10–12 sq ft or larger backers for multi‑tenant buildings) and clarifying that multi‑tenant buildings may have one directory per public entry rather than one per tenant. Committee also asked staff to allow high-density urethane (HDU) or other wood‑like materials in addition to wood/metal.

- Freestanding (ground) signs: Staff proposed a maximum sign area of 30 square feet and a maximum height measured from finished grade in the village of 6 feet (6'6\" noted as the current practice in some approvals). Committee debate centered on visibility to drivers, visual clutter, and a potential tiered approach tied to lot frontage. Sign fabricator and committee members urged keeping a practical height (several members expressed comfort with the existing 6'6\" maximum), requiring a substantial base that is at least 75% of the sign face width, and adding landscape at the base. Rafael agreed to clarify base construction, add a landscaping requirement, and consult Public Works about minimum spacing between ground signs.

- Outdoor display cases / menu cases: Staff proposed limiting exterior menu/display cases to 4 square feet (6 square feet in some cases); affixed to the building and externally illuminated only. Several committee members suggested allowing internal, concealed case lighting (with limits) because internal lighting can be less visually intrusive than external fixtures; staff agreed to consider a controlled foot‑candle standard and operating‑hours limitations rather than outright bans.

- Window lettering: Staff proposed limiting permanent window lettering to 25% of each window area and retaining current letter‑height caps (8 inches in the VMU; 10 inches elsewhere) while clarifying that commercially occupied second‑floor windows may be allowed to display tenant identification. Committee generally favored flexible materials (vinyl, painted effects, acrylic letters) and asked staff to clarify that window graphics count toward maximum allowed signage area per storefront.

- Projecting signs and suspended/blade signs: Staff reviewed current rules. Committee consensus favored eliminating projecting signs in the village (those shown in the draft were judged unnecessary or visually intrusive) while retaining suspended/blade signs with updated minimum vertical clearance (8 feet) and defined projection/letter depth (committee members asked staff to change the suggested half‑inch depth to quarter‑inch for smaller signs). The committee also supported allowing decorative wrought‑iron brackets and directed staff to add guidelines for bracketed decorative hangers and downward shielding of lights.

- Murals and special‑consideration signs: Staff proposed a limited exemption framework for murals that sets definitions and maintenance requirements but does not treat murals as standard “signs.” Committee members discussed various models used by larger jurisdictions (City of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Diego) and asked staff to return with a more developed mural policy that addresses anti‑graffiti finishes, maintenance obligations, limits on commercial messaging, and whether murals should be limited to one mural per business or require additional review. Several members recommended additional language to ensure murals are considered artwork not advertising; staff agreed to refine the proposal and check legal implications.

Public comment: Susan Bott (Save Our Stars Committee) emphasized shielding and cutoff for sign lighting, asked that illuminated signs avoid light trespass, and suggested illumination limits. Brian (Bridal, 805 Signs) and other sign fabricators advised practical changes—larger directory backers for multi‑tenant buildings, practical material allowances (acrylic, HDU, aluminum with appropriate finishes), and caution about over‑specifying materials that may quickly become obsolete.

Outcome and next steps: The committee gave staff substantive direction but did not adopt ordinance language. Rafael said staff will revise the Part 2 draft to reflect the committee’s guidance (increase directory sizes for multi‑tenant buildings, add landscaping requirement and base standards for freestanding signs, consider internal case lighting under a measured standard, refine mural language, eliminate projecting signs in the village and retain suspended/blade signs with clarified clearance and depth standards). Staff will prepare Part 3 (nonconforming signs and definitions) for the committee’s next meeting, and ultimately the package will go to the Planning Commission and City Council for formal action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Solvang Design Review Committee Meeting 8/21/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Solvang Design Review Committee reviewed Part 2 of proposed amendments to the city’s sign ordinance on Aug. 21, 2025, and provided detailed direction to staff on awning signs, directory signs, freestanding signs, menu/display cases, window lettering, blade signs and a new draft framework for murals.","taxTitle","Solvang, Santa Barbara County, California","taxId",60283,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6501994,"Design Review Committee narrows village color palette, directs staff to publish recommendations",2108,863000,2971000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5653719-05b237ae781eeacbf310995fee40062f&start=863&end=2971","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5653719-05b237ae781eeacbf310995fee40062f/thumbnail_863000.jpg","/articles/6501994/Solvang/Santa-Barbara-County/California/Design-Review-Committee-narrows-village-color-palette-directs-staff-to-publish-recommendations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6501994-e7538dcdc1cb31bfe3517d732fc0d47b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770601100&Signature=YwQhZqiL8qFYKNpFi8acN4EzCtObWa3HQc8BLHNAFl14v4MYr~4ImaJN6kzmCxukDN0hHC15jZAF1ssyxMDHl9KwD1XldmOckQkXBTS1iBLQnF0qQcr9bXWvjIi45OUutvKaIke8QNhvPaH4PwbNixHzg~sw~cGubcDhCDEiexweJOODnKsuaLP5UqAkRNWeKtiI7i~Re6ZEjH-7CpAU9HorvBixpkJjA13NNuz~0HX5EHk6hozHJ6nz4PRG-DjLQvWdfocDSbX3axW0voLca8vzGMsuUHGwZch0bCwv6~P0aUxzoR2aliGzUW5QYqN1wHb5QXZfU43~wHD238zLOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Solvang Design Review Committee on Aug. 21, 2025, narrowed a proposed color palette for the Village Design District (DD1) and asked staff to compile the committee-approved colors into the draft design handbook and post them for public review. The committee conducted an item-by-item poll of color chips presented in a bound booklet and returned a set of recommended colors to staff for inclusion in the handbook.

The discussion, led by a staff presentation and facilitated by Chair Esther Jacobson Bates, focused on removing neon and bright synthetic hues and selecting facade colors consistent with an “authentic Danish aesthetic,” according to staff. Lisa (staff member) presented the chips and walked the committee through the booklet page by page, recording yea/nay tallies for each swatch.

Why it matters: the design handbook will guide future storefront and façade choices in Solvang’s village core. Committee members said a curated list helps applicants and staff make consistent decisions and reduces the need for repetitive exceptions at later review stages.

Committee members said they wanted an objectively limited but usable palette. “Giving [applicants] the options will help the discussion way down the line,” Chair Esther Jacobson Bates said during the meeting. Lisa told the committee she would return a consolidated recommended palette as staff’s next step.

What the committee did: members polled dozens of swatches across yellows, oranges/reds, blues, blue-greens, greens, and neutrals. The transcript records many 3–2 and 4–1 splits; items with at least three yes votes were counted as recommended. Examples discussed on the record include unanimous or near‑unanimous approvals for lemon meringue and optimistic yellow; mixed support (3–2) for icy lemonade; approvals for ceremonial gold and rockwood amber; approval for polished concrete and impressive ivory in the reds/oranges pages; and a set of blues and blue-greens the committee generally favored. Lisa and Chair Bates agreed staff would bring back items with split votes if the committee wanted additional discussion.

Process and next steps: Lisa said staff will place the committee-recommended colors on the city website, finalize the handbook draft, and return a consolidated draft to the committee for review. The committee did not adopt the handbook as code in this meeting; the direction to staff was nonbinding and intended to produce a draft for future review.

Public input: one resident, Brian (resident), spoke briefly at the start of the meeting but did not offer substantive testimony on the palette itself. Several committee members noted they collected public input at a park outreach event, which staff said aligned with committee preferences.

Context and background: staff previously presented color options to the Design Review Committee in prior months (presentations referenced in July/June). During the Aug. 21 meeting, members emphasized exterior façade colors only; trim and a separate trim palette will return at a later date.

Ending: staff will compile the recommended palette and include it in the draft Village Design District handbook; the draft will be posted online and returned to the committee for formal review at a later meeting. No changes to city code were adopted at this meeting; the action was direction to staff to assemble and circulate the palette for the handbook.","The Solvang Design Review Committee took a page-by-page vote on a proposed color palette for the Village Design District (DD1) and directed staff to compile the majority-approved colors into the design handbook for public posting and later review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Committee reviews Part 2 of proposed sign ordinance amendments, gives staff direction on multiple sign types

Design Review Committee narrows village color palette, directs staff to publish recommendations