Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 SIGN REMOVAL 11-05-01AGENDA REPORT NO. 1 11-5-01 MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 5, 2001 680-95 WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CODE AMENDMENT 01-004- SIGN REMOVAL COST RECOVERY SUMMARY Code Amendment 01-004 is an amendment to Subsection g of Section 9405 of the Tustin City Code to allow the City to remove illegal signs placed on public property and to recover the costs from the person responsible for the placement of such signs, through an administrative procedure. On October 8, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 01-004 (Attachment A - Staff Report/Resolution). Applicant: City of Tustin Community DeVelopment Department RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take the following actions' · Adopt Resolution No. 01-102 approving the Final Negative Declaration for the. project; and, . Introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance No. 1246, approving Code Amendment 01-004 and set for second reading at the Council's next scheduled meeting. FISCAL IMPACT Code Amendment 01-004 is a City-initiated project. The proposed amendment would establish an administrative procedure for the collection of costs associated with illegal sign removal. These costs would offset the City's costs for the sign removal. ENVIRONMENTAL A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment B). City Council Report Code Amendment 01-004 November 5, 2001 Page 2 DISCUSSION The current provisions of the Tustin City Code allow the City to remove any sign illegally placed on public property, and to recover the costs of removal from the owner of the sign. The current provisions of the City Code also provide a procedure, including a mandatory hearing before the City Council, to establish the costs and charges to be levied against the owner of the sign. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow the City to remove illegal signs placed on public property and to recover the costs from the person responsible for the placement of such signs. It would establish a presumption that the person who benefited from the placement of the signs is the person responsible. The proposed amendment creates an administrative procedure for establishing the costs and charges, including an appeal process to a hearing officer designated by the City Manager. The proposed administrative procedure would significantly reduce the amount of staff time necessary to recover the costs of removing and disposing of illegal signs on public property and would reduce the cost of abatement for the person responsible for the placement of the illegal sign. Staff time and costs would, be reduced because a hearing would not be necessary unless requested. It is estimated that Code enforcement staff have devoted up to ten (10) staff hours per week to sign removal and associated administrative tasks. As an example of the proliferation of illegal signs in the public right-of-way, on Saturday, July 14, 2001, code enforcement staff removed 69 illegal signs from the public right-of-way. The physical tasks associated with sign removal include: locating the sign, safely parking the City vehicle, photographing the sign, removing the sign, depositing the sign in the vehicle, and disposing of the sign. Administrative tasks include: printing a copy of the photograph, creating a code enforcement case file, entering the case information into the City's code enforcement computer tracking program, contacting the responsible parties, completing activity logs, reporting the activity to a supervisor, closing and filing the case file, and in some cases responding to complainants. To recover costs from the responsible person pursuant to the proposed code amendment, staff would need to prepare and mail an invoice and monitor the payment of the invoice. If a hearing before the hearin~ officer is requested, staff would be responsible for notifying the responsible person of the hearing date, preparing a report to the hearing officer, attending the hearing, and providing written confirmation of the hearing officer's decision. The costs associated with these tasks would be included, as applicable. The costs for the removal of the illegal signs would be established by resolution of the City Council. This resolution will be presented to the City Council on November 19, 2001. The City Council Report Code Amendment 01-004 November 5, 2001 Page 3 cost per sign would be based on the cost of the staff time needed for removal and disposal of the sign, including administrative costs. The staff costs are estimated as followS: Physical Tasks Administrative Tasks Invoicing Tasks Appeal/Hearing Tasks (if applicable) $9 per sign $78 for the first sign plus $5 per additional sign $39 per invoice $183 per hearing SUMMARY AND FINDINGS In summary, the proposed amendments would establish the following' The person who was responsible for the placement of the illegal sign shall be liable to the City for the cost of the removal of such sign. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the person who benefited from the sign shall be presumed to be the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign. The Director of Community Development is authorized to determine the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign and costs of removal and disposal of the sign and to invoice such person for the amount of such costs, including any administrative costs and such other costs related to removal and disposal as the Council may establish by resolution. Any person who has received an invoice may request a hearing on the responsibility of such person for the placement of the sign and/or the amount stated as the cost of removal and disposal of the sign. Upon the receipt of a request for a hearing, the Director of Community Development shall set a hearing date before a hearing officer appointed by the City Manager within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request for a hearing. At the hearing, the person requesting the hearing shall present evidence that: 1) the person was not rosponsible for the placement of the illegal sign; or 2) the amount invoiced for sign removal and disposal was excessive. The total amount of the invoice shall 'include the amount initially assessed and shall include an additional amount to cover the costs of the hearing, as the Council may establish by resolution. The decision of the hearing officer is final. City Council Report Code Amendment 01-004 November 5, 2001 Page 4 Findings to support the proposed amendments are as follows' The code amendment would protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to abate these signs and reduce the negative impacts of sign clutter on the community more effectively by using the recovered costs to fund increased enforcement efforts. The proposed amendment would assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Scott Reekstin Senior Planner ccreport\CA 01-004 Elizabeth A. Binnacle- ' Community Development Director Attachments' A- Planning Commission Report and Resolution No. 3808 B- Resolution No. 01-102 C- Ordinance No. 1246 ATTACHMENT A Report to the Planning Commission IIi-M ¢f3 DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2001 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CODE AMENDMENT 01~)04 CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATION/ ZONING' CITYWIDE WITHIN PUBLIC PROPERTY AND EASEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS. BEEN pREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST' AMEND SUBSECTION g OF SECTION 9405 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING TO ABATEMENT OF ILLEGAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission' . Adopt Resolution No. 3807 recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration for the project as adequate; . Adopt Resolution No. 3808 ~ecommending that the City Council approve Code Amendment 01-004. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The current Provisions of the Tustin City Code allow the City to remove any sign illegally placed on public property and to recover the costs of removal from the owner of the sign. The current provisions of the City Code also provide a procedure, including a mandatory hearing before the City Council, to establish the costs and charges to be levied against the owner of the sign. The proposed °rdinance amendment would allow the City to remove .illegal signs placed on public property and to recover the costs from the person responsible for the placement of such signs.. It would establish a presumption that the person who benefited from' the placement of the signs is the person responsible. The proposed amendment creates an administrative procedure for establishing the costs and charges, including an appeal process to a hearing officer designated by the City Manager. Planning Commission Report Code Amendment 01-004 October 8, 2001 · Page 2 The proposed administrative procedure' would significantly reduce the amount of staff time necessary to recover the costs of removing and disposing of illegal signs on public property and would reduce the cost of abatement for the person responsible for the placement of the illegal sign. Staff time and costs would be reduced because a hearing would not be necessary unless requested. It is estimated that Code enforcement staff have devoted up to ten (10) staff hours per week to sign removal and. associated administrative tasks. As an example of the proliferation of illegal signs in the public right-of-way, on Saturday, July 14, 2001, code enforcement staff removed 69 illegal signs from the public right-of-way. The physical tasks .associated with sign removal include: locating the sign, safely parking the City vehicle, photographing the sign, removing the sign, depositing the sign in the vehicle, and disposing of the sign. Administrative tasks include: printing 'a copy of the photograph, creating, a code enforcement case file, entering the case information into the City's code enforcement computer tracking program, contacting the responsible parties, completing activity logs, reporting the activity to a supervisor, closing and filing the case file, and in some cases responding to complainants. To recover costs from the responsible person pursuant to the proposed code amendment, staff would need to prepare and mail an invoice and' monitor the payment of the invoice. If a hearing before the hearing officer is requested, staff would be responsible for notifying the responsible person of the hearing date, preparing a report to the hearing officer, attending the hearing, and providing written confirmation of the hearing officer's decision. The costs associated with these tasks would be included, as applicable. The costs for the removal of the illegal signs would be established by resolution of the City Council. The cost per sign would be based on the cost of the staff time needed for removal and disposal of the sign, including administrative costs. The staff costs are estimated as follows: ... Physical Tasks Administrative Tasks Invoicing Tasks A. ppeal/Hearin9 Tasks (if applicable) $9 per sign $78 for. the first sign plus $5 per add'l sign $39 per invoice $183 per hearing SUMMARY AND FINDINGS In summary, the proposed amendments would establish the following' The person who was responsible for the placement of the illegal sign shall be liable to the City for the cost of the removal of such sign. Planning Commission .Report Code Amendment 01-004 October 8, 2001 Page 3 In the absence.of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the person who benefited from the sign shall be presumed to be the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign. The Director of Community Development is authorized to determine the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign and costs of removal and disposal of the sign and to invoice such person for the amount of such costs, including any administrative costs and such other costs related to removal and disposal as the Council may establish by resolution. Any person who has receiVed an invoice may request a hearing on the responsibility of such person for the placement of the sign and/or the amount stated as the cost of removal and disposal of the sign. Upon the receipt of a request for a hearing, the Director of Community Development shall set a hearing date before a hearing officer appointed by the City Manager within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request for a hearing. At the hearing, the person requesting the hearing shall present evidence that: 1) the person was not responsible for the placement of the illegal sign; or 2) the amount invoiced for sign removal and disposal was excessive. The total amount of the invoice shall include the amount initially assessed and shall include an additional amount to cover the costs of the hearing, as .the Council may establish by resolution. The decision of the hearing officer is final. Findings to support the proposed amendments are as follows' The code amendment would protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City of. Tustin in that the City will be able to abate these signs and reduce the negative impacts of sign clutter on the community more effectively by using the recovered costs to fund increased enforce.ment efforts. The proposed amendment would assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of CommUnity Development Pcreport\CA 01-004 Attachment A: Attachment B' Resolution Nos. 3807 and 3808 Initial Study/Negative Declaration RESOLUTION NO. 3808 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ~THAT THE CITY .CO. UNCIL. APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT 01-004 TO AMEND SUBSECTION g OF SECTION 9405 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING .TO ABATEMENT. OF 'ILLEGAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY~ .. 9 !. 14' 20 24 25 27 The Planning CommisSion of the City of'Tustin does herebY resolve as follows' The Planning Commission finds and determines' Ao That. the amendment to Tustin City. Code Section 9405g has been prepared. to establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and. disposal of .illegally placed signs on public property or easements. B~ That a public hearing was duly noticed, Called, and held. on this project by the Planning Commission on October'8, 2001. Do The proposed amendment is consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that it complies with Goal 4 to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleaSing 'community for residents and businesses, in addition, the .project has been revieWed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent, with the Air Quality Sub-Element. · . .. The proposed amendment would not have an adverse effect o.n the public health, .safety; and welfare of residents or businesses of the City. El The pro'cedure for the recovery of costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed'signs ,on public'property or easements established by this Ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to abate these signs and reduce the negative impacts of sign clutter on the community more effectively by 'using the recovered costs to fund increased enforcement efforts. Fe That a Final Negative Declaration has been considered and recommended for approval .by the City Council in conformance with the 'requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. l0 14 2.0 2.?- 24 27 Resolution No. 3808 Page 2 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment 01-004 by amending Subsection g of Section 9405 of.the.Tustin . City Code as follows: Abatement of Illegal Signs in Public Right-of-Way Any sign installed or placed illegally on public property or easements, except in conformance with the requirements of this chapter, shall be forfeited to the public and.subject to confiscation and. destruction' or disposal without notice ..or hearing. , The person who was responsible for the placement of the illegal sign shall be liable to the City for the cost of the removal of such sign. In the absence of persuasive evidence to .the contrary, the · person who benefited from the sign shall be presumed to' be the person Who was responsible for the placement of the sign. The · Director of Community Development is authorized to determine the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign and costs of removal and disposal of the sign and' to invoice such person for the amount of' such costs,, including any administrative costs and such other costs related to removal and disposal as' the Council may establish by resolution. Any invoice shall be accompanied by a notice of the responsible person's right to a hearing pursuant to this Subsection. ,, 4~ AnY person who has received an invoice ..pursuant .to this Subsection may request a hearing on the responsibility of such person for the .placement of the sign and/or the amount stated as the cost of removal and disposal, of the sign. Any such request for a hearing must be-in writing and must be filed with the Community Development Director within .ten (10) business days of the date of mailing of the invoice..The request for' hearing must. set forth the basis of such person's objection to the invoice. Upon the' receipt of a request for a hearing, the Director of Community Development shall set a .hearing date before.a hearing officer appointed by the City Manager within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request for a hearing. The Director.shall provide the person requesting the hearing at least five (5)'days advance notice of the hearing date.. The hearing date may be changed by mutual consent of the Director of Community Development, the person requesting the hearing, and the hearing officer. At the hearing, the person requesting the hearing shall present evidence that: .1) the person was not .? l0 !4 Resolution N°. 38.08 Page 3 1 responsible for 'the placement of .the illegal sign; or 2)the amount invoiced for sign removal and disposal was excessive. Within a reasonable time ..following the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer Shall render a written decision, in the event the hearing officer .determines that the person requesting the hearing was not the person responsible for the placement of the sign, the invoice shall be cancel, led in full. in the event the hearing officer determines 'that the amount invoiced should be reduced,, the invoice shall be modified accordingly and the person requesting the hearing shall be liable for such reduced amount, in all other respects, the Director of Community' Development's deterrtiination shall be. upheld; the total amount of the invoice shall include the amount initially assessed and shall include an additi°nal 'amount' to cover the costs of the hearing, as the Council may establish by resolution. The decision of the hearing officer shall be final. SED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin.at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October, 2001. ELIZABETH A. B'INSACK Planning Commission Secretary 2,0. 2! E OF CALIFORNIA ) OF ORANGE ) SS TY OF TUSTIN. ) 22, 2.,4 26 :2? 28 2.,9 LE~SLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson , ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning ission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution NO-. 3808 was duly passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of October, 2001. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT B l0 14 l? 20 2! 24 25 28 ?-9 RESOLUTION NO. 01-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 01-004 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: Am That Code Amendment 01-004 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Bi A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Gl The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration, and on October 8, 2001, recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. Bi The City Council of the City of Tustin considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration and determined that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed project and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. l0 12 14 20 22 24 25 2'7 28 Resolution No. 01-102 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of November, 2001. PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Tracy Wills Worley Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 01-102 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 01-102 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of November, 2001. COUNClLMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY .: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way,. Tustin, C./I 92780 (7.14) 5 73-3 ] O0 i i i i i i i i i i i Ae BACKGROUND Project Title: Code Amendment.'01-004 (Sign Removhl Cost Recovery) Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way . Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person' Scott Reekstin Phone: 714/573-3016 Project Location: Citywide Project Sponsor's Name and Address' City of Tustin General Plan Designation: Not applicable. Zoning Designation: Project Description: Not appllcable A Code Amendment to the Tustin City Code to establish, an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. Surrounding Uses' North: N/A South: N/A East: N/A West: N/A Other public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire AuthoritY Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other [--] 'City of Irvine [--] City of Santa Ana [--] Orange County EMA g~ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental .factors checked below would be potentially .affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [--]Land Use and Planning [--~Population and Housing ~-']Geological. Problems [~]Water. [--]Air Quality ,.~.. ['-]Transportation & Circulation [-']Biological Resources" [--]Energy and Mineral Resources [-]Hazards [~]Noise . [--~Public Services [~]Utilities and Service Systems [-']Aesthetics [--]Cultural Resources [-]Recreation [-]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION- ' On the basis of this initial'evaluation: ~] I find that the proposed prOject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. '[-'-] I find that although the prOposed project could have a.significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [--] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [--] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and .2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ['--] I find that although the proposed project could have'a significant effect on the environment, there WILL · NOT be a significant effect in tlfis case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the -proposed project. [--J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Scott Reekstin Title Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Date Senior Planner September 2..7, 2001 1) 2) 3) 4) s) 6) 7) 9) De EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by'the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No'Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, c0nstmction, and operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that.a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where, they are available for review. b). Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. .c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorPorated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously pre'pared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement.is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources' A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, 'and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation'of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATI. ON OF ENVI.RONMENTAL,..IMPACTS · I- . AESTH. ETICS- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of sgbstantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views-in the area? II..AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR .QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b)' Violate any air quality Standard 'or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substamial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact . No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or. special stares species in local or regional plans, policies., or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, identified in local or regional plans, policies' .regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES' - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation O . Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State GeOlogist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division.of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related'ground failure, including'liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be' located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B' of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial. risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ,, Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)' For a project located within an airport land use plan or, . where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant ~Vith Mitigation ..... Incorporation Less Than Significant ·Impact No Impact El V1 -g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WAT..ER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a · stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in 'flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard. Boundary or Flood · Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE A,ND ,PLANNING- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation J~ess Than Significant · Impact No Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the . purpose, of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RES.0URCES, - Would the project: a), Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure Of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local.general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? b) A substantial permanem increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where Such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a .public airport or public use airport,' would the project expose people residing or working in the. project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII. POPuLATION AND H.OUSING - Would the. project: a) Induce substantial population growth 'in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extenSion of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,' necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? " Less Than Significant ?otentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation . . . Impact No Impact "' [23 [23 © [2] 0 0" 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmemal facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? ! Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. REC,REATIO,N - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service Standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 'including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.' sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant Impact .. Less Than Significant W~th Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact , [2] [2] No Impact -g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g-, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? · b) Require or result in the construction of new .water or wastewater, treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, 'the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water · drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have' the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a.project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable furore projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? .Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [3 No Impact. ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CODE AMENDMENT 01-004, SIGN REMOVAL COST REcOVERy BACKGROUND' The current provisions of the Tustin City Code allow the City to remove any sign illegally placed on public property and to recover the costs of .removal from the owner of the sign. The current provisions of the City Code'also provide a procedure, including a mandatory hearing before the City Council, to establish the costs and' charges to be levied against the owner of the sign. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow the City to .remove illegal signs placed on public property, and to recover the costs from the perso.n responsible for the. placement' of such signs. It would establish a presumption that 'the person who benefited from the placement of the' signs is the person resPonsible. 'The proposed amendment creates an administrative procedure for establishing the costs and charges, including an appeal process to a 'hearing officer designated by the City Manager. There would be no physical improvement or changes in the e,nvironment as a result of the adoption of this code .amendment. .1. AESTHETICS Items a 'through d_ "N.o. Impact"' The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the. costs associated with the removal and disposal' of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment..The proposed code amendment will not have any effects on aesthetics in the area including scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks outcropping, and historic buildings within, a state scenic highway. The proposed code amendment will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the plan area or its surroundings. The amendment will improve the aesthetic character of Tustin's streetsCapes because the 'City will be able to abate illegal Signs and reduce the negative impacts of .sign clutter by using the recovered 'costs to fund sign enforcement efforts.. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required' None Required , AG RICU LTU RAL .RESOURCES i ii i i Items a..thro.ugh c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study Attachment A Page 2 of 7 '3. and disposal .'of illegally placed signs on public .property or ,easements. No physical improvements are proposed in. conjunction With the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed code amendment will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will it Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The code amendment will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Source' TUstin General Plan .. Mitigatio .n../Monitoring Requi.r. ed: None Required AIR QUALITY Items a through e .-"No. Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No physical' improvements .are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The code amendment will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors 'to Substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Sources' South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring'Required' None Required ,, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES l lll ii Items a th.r.0.ugh.f-"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated With the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations .by the California Department of Fish and Game or' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this code amendment. Source: Tustin General Plan .M iti.qation/Monitorin.q Required- None Required Sign Removal.- Code Amendment- Initial Study Attachment A Page 3 of 7 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES' i i ii . . ,Items a through d- "No !..mpact"' The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The code amendment will not adversely affect any historical resources or archaeological resources or destroy or disturb a unique paleontological resource, human remains, or. geological'feature. . Sources: Cultural Resources District Tustin Zoning Code General Plan Miti.qation/Monitorin._q Required' None Required GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a through e- "No Impact":. The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative .procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No · physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. As 'such, the proposed code amendment will not expose people to potential adverse geologic impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a knOwn earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, s0il erosion, or .loss of top. soil, nor is the project on unstable or expansive soil. . Source: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS i Items a.through h- "No Impact"' The proposed code amendment.would establish an administrative procedure for recovering, the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally .placed signs on public property or easements. No physical.improvements are proposed in conjunction with .the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor is the project area located within an airpor~ land use plan or vicinity of a private airstrip. · Sources' Orange County Fire Authority Tustin General Plan Sign Removal- Code ~tmendment' Initial Study Attachment,,1 ' Page 4 of 7 . , ,10. ,Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALI.TY Items a through _i- "No Impact": The propeSed code amendment wOuld establish an administrative, procedure fer recovering the costs associated With the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs o.n' public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The code amendment will not result in any change in the amount or direction of surface or groundwaters. .. Source' Tustin General. Plan ,Mitigati0n/Monitorin_a R,,equired' None Required LAND USE AND PLANNING ,1,1 i Items.a through c-,",No impac,.t,'i: The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for .recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of. illegally placed signs on. public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed, code amendment will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. SoUrces: Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required' None Required MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and, b, -"No,Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an 'administrative Procedure for recovering the costs associated With the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed code .amendment will not result .in loss of a known mineral resource or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan or other applicable .land use maps. ... Source: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring R _e.q._ uired' None Required Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study ,,l ttac hment ,,I Page 5 of 7 11. NOISE 12. 13. !tems a through ,f.,-"No lmpa.,c.t": The proposed code amendment would establish an. administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs .on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not expose persons to noise levels in excess 'of standards established in the general" plan, noise code amendment, or. excessive ground Vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels. Sources' ,, , Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monit0.rin.q Required: None Required POPULATION AND HOUSING .Items a, b, and c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would .establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with.the removal and disposal of illegally placed, signs .on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction, with the adoption of this code amendment. No impact associated with the .increase .in population and housing is anticipated. Source: Tustin General Plan Miti._qation/Monitorina R.e. quired' None Required PUBLIC SERVICES Item a-" No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs On public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment.. The proposed code amendment will not create demand for. alterati°n or addition of government facilities or services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc. On the contrary, cost recovery will off-set .staff costs associated with sign removal thereby reducing the tax burden on Tustin's general' taxpayers. Source: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Rea'uired: None Required Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study Attachment A Page 6 of 7 '14. RECREATION 15. 16. Items.a and,b- "Ne. Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs' on public property or easements. No physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The code amendment would not increase demand for neighborhood parks or recreational, facilities. Impacts related to any future project, would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. .. Sources' Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Re.q. uired: None Required TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a through g -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed'signs on public property or easements..No physical improvements' are proposed in conjunction with.the adoption of this code amendment. No alteration in the traffic generation and circulation patterns 'within the project area would be affected by-the proposed code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, emergency access, level of service standards,' or conflict with adopted .policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.. Improved sign enforcement, resulting from cost recovery..may serve to improve traffic safety because potentially distracting signs may. be more efficiently removed from public property. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti.aation/Monitoring Required: .None Required UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .Items a through..q -. "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative .procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No physical improvements are 'proposed in conjunction with' the adoption of this code amendment. The adoption of the code amendment will have no impacts to water treatment, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. S°ui-ce: Tustin General Plan Miti.aation/Monitoring Required' None Required Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study Attachment A Page 7 of 7 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .. Items a through c- "No. Impact',: The proposed code amendment would establish an administrative Procedure for recovering the. costs associated with the removal and disposal .of illegally placed signs on public property or easementS. No physical improvements are proposed in Conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of the adoption of this code amendment. The code amendment 'does not have the-potential to' degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor produce significant negative indirect or direct effects on humans. S:\CDD\Scott~Environmental etc\ neg dec-CA 01-004attachment A,doc ATTACHMENT C l0 14 17 19 20 21 24 27 ORDINANCE NO. 1246 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION g OF SECTION 9405 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING TO ABATEMENT OF ILLEGAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Al That the amendment to Tustin City Code Section 9405g has been prepared to establish an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. Bi That a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on this Ordinance by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2001, and by the City Council on November 5, 2001. Gl The proposed amendment would not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, and welfare of residents or businesses of the City. D. A Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). El The procedure for the recovery of costs associated with the removal and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements established by this Ordinance is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City of Tustin in that the City will be able to abate these signs and reduce the negative impacts of sign clutter on the community more effectively by using the recovered costs to fund increased enforcement efforts. F, The proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with Goal 4 to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. .Section 1l. Subsection g of Section 9405 of the Tustin City Code is amended to reae as follows: l0 14 l? 20 24 ?.6 2'7 Ordinance No. 1246 Page 2 gt Abatement.of Illegal Signs in Public Right-of-Way ,, Any sign installed or placed illegally on public property or easements, except in conformance with the requirements of this chapter, shall be forfeited to the public and subject to confiscation and destruction or disposal without notice or hearing. . The person who was responsible for the placement of the illegal sign shall be liable to the City for the cost of the removal of such sign. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the person who benefited from the sign shall be presumed to be the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign. The Director of Community Development is authorized to determine the person who was responsible for the placement of the sign and costs of removal and disposal of the sign and to invoice such person for the amount of such costs, including any administrative costs and such other costs related to removal and disposal as the Council may establish by resolution. Any invoice shall be accompanied by a notice of the responsible person's right to a hearing pursuant to this Subsection. . Any person who has received an invoice pursuant to this Subsection may request a hearing on the responsibility of such person for the placement of the sign and/or the amount stated as the cost of removal and disposal of the sign. Any such request for a hearing must be in writing and must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) business days of the date of mailing of the invoice. The request for hearing must set forth the basis of such person's objection to the invoice. . Upon the receipt of a request for a hearing, the Director of Community Development shall set a hearing date before a hearing officer appointed by the City Manager within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request for a hearing. The Director shall provide the person requesting the hearing at least five (5) days advance notice of the hearing date. The hearing date may be changed by mutual consent of the Director of Community Development, the person requesting the hearing, and the hearing officer. At the hearing, the person requesting the hearing shall present evidence that: 1) the person was not responsible for the placement of the illegal sign; or 2) the amount invoiced for sign. removal and disposal was excessive. . Within a reasonable time following the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer shall render a written decision. In the event the hearing officer determines that the person requesting the hearing ]0 14 15 ]7 18 2O 2! 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 Ordinance No. 1246 Page 3 was not the person responsible for the placement of the sign, the invoice shall be cancelled in full. In the event the hearing officer determines that the amount invoiced should be reduced, the invoice shall be modified accordingly and the person requesting the hearing shall be liable for such reduced amount. In all other respects, the Director of Community Development's determination shall be upheld; the total amount of the invoice shall include the amount initially assessed and shall include an additional amount to cover the costs of the hearing, as the Council may establish by resolution. The decision of the hearing officer shall be final. Section III. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any mason determined to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, .sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconStitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 19th day of November, 2001. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk