The Solvang Design Review Committee discussed proposed revisions to the city's sign ordinance (Title 11, Chapter 13) at its Oct. 16, 2025 meeting, with staff outlining changes to nonconforming signage, abandoned-sign timeframes, enforcement and definitions and receiving direction to forward the draft to the Planning Commission.

The revisions are the third and final part of a multipart update intended to streamline permitting, create objective, content-neutral standards and maintain downtown aesthetic quality. Planning staffer Rafael Castillo said the section before the committee focuses on nonconforming signs and definitions and is meant to clarify what changes are allowed without bringing a sign into full conformity.

Castillo summarized the proposal: legally permitted signs that no longer meet new standards would remain "nonconforming" and limited maintenance would be allowed (for example, changing sign copy). The draft also lists specific prohibited modifications that would require a sign to be brought into conformity. Castillo said the ordinance would remove a longstanding provision that required nonconforming signs to become conforming one year after adoption (the ordinance cited a 1980 adoption date) and noted the change was meant to avoid imposing an undue expense on businesses.

On abandoned signage, staff proposed a defined "shot clock": a sign would be considered abandoned after 180 days (six months), at which point staff would notify the property owner and follow an enforcement timetable. Castillo said the draft codifies a 10-day window for removal of illegal signs after written notice and that city staff would have clear timeframes for enforcement. "We're actually basically saying now at 6 months or a hundred and 80 days, we can then contact the landlord to say, hey, you got an abandoned sign," Castillo said. He also noted staff could shorten the abandoned-sign period and agreed with a committee suggestion to consider 90 days instead of 180.

Enforcement would rely on Solvang's adopted fee schedule rather than duplicating penalties in the sign chapter; Castillo said the first administrative fine in practice is $100 and fines can escalate per day. Dave (staff member) said the city could abate and remove a sign immediately only where it posed an imminent hazard: "The one thing that we might have the power to do to remove the sign is if there were something that was unsafe or constituted a hazard, we may have the ability to abate a nuisance summarily and actually go on the property," he said. For nonhazardous signs, staff would follow complaint-driven procedures and administrative citations.

The draft also: consolidates illegal-sign timeframes (10 days after notice for removal), moves the sign-plan process into the city's assigned program/procedure, removes an enforcement-and-penalty section from the sign chapter to align with the municipal penalties in Title 3, and substantially rewrites definitions to be objective (for example, preserving the "flat silhouette cutout sign" definition). Castillo said the revision is intended to give staff clear, trainable rules and make sign permitting easier for businesses.

Committee members asked whether 180 days was too long for an abandoned sign; several favored shortening the period to 90 days. Members also asked about shabby or deteriorated signs; Castillo said a maintenance standard is part of the broader package and that complaints typically trigger code compliance inspections.

Votes at a glance: the committee conducted routine procedural votes earlier in the meeting. A motion to approve the agenda passed by roll call (Members Melissa Bates, Goetz, Johnson and Vice Chair Boyd approved; Chair Esther Jacobson Bates was absent). A motion to approve the consent calendar passed by the same roll call vote (four approvals, one absence). (Mover/second not specified on the record.)

Next steps: staff will incorporate the DRC's direction, present the package to the Planning Commission (anticipated next month), seek City Council input thereafter, run the ordinance through city attorney review, and return to DRC and Planning Commission for recommendations before first reading at City Council. Castillo said staff plans to publish a companion sign handbook with illustrative examples for business owners and make that handbook available online.

The committee provided direction but took no final action on the ordinance; staff will revise the draft and return it to the formal review process.