Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02 CODE AMEND 95-002 07-03-95
NO. 2 Inter-Corn DATE: JULY 3, 1995 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJEC~ CODE AMENDMENT 95-002 - REVISIONS TO SIGN CODE FOR NON- COMMERCIAL SIGNS AND REMOVAL OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: i , Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 95-59; and . Have first reading by title only and introduction of Ordinance No. 1153, approving Code Amendment 95-002 as submitted or revised. ' . Direct the City Clerk to include a handout to be prepared by the Community Development Department with all election handout materials. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impacts to the City associated with this code amendment. The proposed ordinance is intended to establish regulations for political campaign signs and non-commercial signs. Signs in violation of this ordinance may be removed by the City and the costs of removal and disposition may be charged to the sign owner/property owner. BACKGROUND Tustin City Code Section 9401 et. seq. which establishes regulations for design of signs and sign structures within the City of Tustin was comprehensively amended in October 1991 with the adoption of Ordinance 1077. Section 9403 d13 of. the Tustin City Code addresses regulations for political signs in the City. Political signs may be used to identify any issues, candidate or group of candidates in any district, municipal, county, state or federal election. Currently, Section 9403d13' which regulates political signs does not adequately address the reasonable removal of political campaign signs after an election. City Council Report Code Amendment 95-002 July 3, 1995 Page 2- At their November 21, 1994 meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft an Ordinance revising the Sign Code related to time limits and removal of political signs. Staffs of the Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney's office have worked together and have drafted a proposed amendment to the sign code related to new timing provisions and enforcement/removal of political signs. Upon further review of the current sign regulations it was determined that Section 9401 et. seq. does not include provisions for the Placement of non- commercial signs. Examples of non-commercial signs include, religious, charitable or sociological opinions, views, policies or beliefs and messages advocating, criticizing or otherwise relating to political views, opinions, i.e. "Save the Whales" The intent of the proposed amendments are to: (1) set reasonable time, place and manner regulations for non-commercial signs; (2) to provide the City with reasonable enforcement and removal authority for signs that do not comply with these restrictions and; (3) to make the political sign approval process less cumbersome and more easily understood. On April 10, 1995 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the proposed ordinance. The Commission expressed concern thai the locational criteria for placement of political campaign signs in the proposed ordinance was too restrictive. Code Amendment 95-002 was continued to April 24, 1995 in order to allow staff and the City Attorney to redraft the ordinance. At the April 24, 1995 Planning Commission meeting additional public testimony was received from Mr. Berklee Maughan, who expressed concerns regarding the Code Amendment. After discussion between the Commission, City Attorney and staff, it was recommended that the Code Amendment be continued to permit the City Attorney and staff to confer and respond to the issues identified by Mr. Maughan and the Commission. On May 22, 1995, a re-drafted ordinance, which included all the changes recommended by the City Attorney was presented to the Planning Commission. After considerable discussion, the Commission recommended an additional change to the ordinance which would require political signs to be removed ten (10) days after an election rather than the five (5) days recommended by staff. The Commission also recommended that the Community Development Department prepare an informational handout summarizing and graphically depicting the proposed ordinance provisions ~as they might apply to political campaign signs and requested that the City Clerk include this handout in all election handout materials provided to political candidates. The Commission unanimously recommended the City Council adopt Code Amendment 95-002. City Council Report Code Amendment 95-002 July 3, 1995 Page 3 A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the City Council public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News and posted at the Tustin City Hall and Police Department. Since this project is citywide it effects over 1,000 parcels, notices were not required to be mailed. DISCUSSION Current Sign Code regulations regulate political signage on private property and in the public parkway; establish a maximum allowable sign area; prohibit sign placements that would impede pedestrian walkway and require a Procedure for obtaining posting date stickers from the Community Development Department. The date sticker was originally requested by the Planning Commission to assist in allowing staff to identify when signs had been posted longer than 90 days to allow their removal. After several years of attempting to require date stickers~on political signs it has been determined t© be ineffective. Current sign regulations, however,-only deal strictly with political signs. Political signs are a type of non- commercial sign. In addition to typical candidate election signage, non-commercial signs also include signs advocating, criticizing or related to political views, opinions or controversies. In order to be consistent with the latest Fi'rst Amendment cases, the City's sign Code must permit all types of non- commercial signs. The proposed ordinance, provides regulations for all types of non-commercial signage. Non-commercial political campaign sign amendments proposed at this time would:: Clarify sign placement criteria related to distances from curbs, streets and edges of public sidewalks. Eliminate the requirement that posting date stickers be obtained from the Community Development Department. Add a provision that political campaign signs be removed within ten (10) days after an election regardless of when it was erected. The proposed amendments would not change the ninety (90) day provision which allows signs to be installed or erected 90 days before an election. Provide clearer removal and enforcement capabilities to the' Public Works Field Service crews who would remove signs that are in violation of the proposed ordinance. City Council Report Code Amendment 95-002 July 3, 1995 Page 4 Strengthen provisions for the city to recover the cost of removal and disposition of signs installed in violation of the sign code. Under the current code, commercial signs on private property are regulated,-however non-commercial signs are not regulated. The non-commercial sign regulations'that are being proposed would: Include regulations prohibiting signs that: interfere with or mislead/confuse traffic; signs affixed to. signals; utility poles; traffic devices; trees or sidewalks; signs of obscene nature; flashing/blinking/rotating/moving/animated signs and signs in areas that constitute a traffic or safety hazard. These regulations are the same as standards for political campaign signs. Establish a maximum sign height of foUr (4) feet and maximum sign area of six (6) square feet for non-commercial signs in the public parkway and a maximum height of ten (10) feet and thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area on private property. These standards are consistent with non-commercial political sign regulations. Establish sign placement criteria related to distances from curbs, streets and edges of public sidewalks. CONCLUSION The proposed amendments would set reasonable place and manner regulations for non-commercial signs including the timely removal of political campaign signs to protect the Community from blight and to ensure an aesthetically pleasing environment while also protecting free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 95- 002 by adopting Ordinance No. 1153 as submitted or revised. Ri~a Westfield AsDistant Director RW: kbm\ccreport \ca95002. rw Attachments: Planning Commission Report - May 22, 1995 Resolution No. 95-59 Ordinance No. 1153 1 2 3 4 I. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 k4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~7 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1153 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ANDADDING SIGN REGULATIONS FOR NON- COMMERCIAL SIGNS INCLUDING THE TIMELY REMOVAL OF POLITICAL SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows ae That reasonable time place and manner regulations are required for political and non-commercial signs in order to prevent blight, a decline in property values, and preserve Tustin as an aesthetically pleasing community. B · This Ordinance aims to protect free expression as ~uaranteed to individuals by the First Amendment, while imposing reasonable regulations to protect the welfare of the community as a whole. Ce¸ It has been determined that there is a need to impose regulations to require the reasonable removal of political campaign signs following an election, to establish standards for non-commercial signs. De The amendments would not have an adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare on residents or businesses of the City. E · The amendments would be consistent with the General Plan in that they would not negatively impact the orderly growth and development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Article 9, Chapter 2, Part A of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: A. Section 9403d(13) of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 13. Noncommercial signs shall be permitted on private property and public parkways, subject to the following provisions: (a) No person shall install or maintain or cause to be installed or maintained any'sign which simulates or imitates in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign or signal, or which makes use of the words "Stop", "Look" , "Danger", or any other words, phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. 10 11 12 13 '14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1153 Page 2 (b) No person shall affix a sign, on any public property or right-of-way including a street, median, island, or sidewalk, except in public parkways as permitted by Section 9403d13. (j). Nor shall any person affix a sign on any traffic signal, utility pole, traffic control device, or tree. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to exhibit, post or display, or cause to be exhibited, post'ed, or displayed upon any Sign, anything of any obscene nature. (d) Signs consisting of any moving, illuminated, swinging, rotating, flashing, blinking, fluctuating or otherwise animated light are prohibited. (e) Written permission of the property owner is required for signs placed on .private property. (f) Signs on private property shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet in size, and ten (10) feet in height above grade. A political sign, which is a sign having to do with any issue, candidate or group of candidates in any district, municipal, county, state~ or federal election, shall not be erected more than ninety (90) days prior to the election to which the sign pertains and shall be removed on or before ten (10) days after the election to which the sign pertains. (h) Signs on private property in violation of this Section 9403d13. shall be removed by City in accordance with Section 9405h of this Code. Except that sUch signs may be summarily removed by the City without compliance with Section 9405h whenever the Director of Public Works or their assigned designees determine that such removal is necessary for the immediate protection and preservation of the public health, safety and/or welfare. Signs removed for these reasons shall be stored by the City for a period of up to thirty (30) days and may be reclaimed by the owner after the payment of all removal and storage costs. Notice of removal of such signs from private property and of the right to reclaim the signage shall be provided to the occupant upon removal or shortly thereafter. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1153 Page 3 (i) Any person who intentionally defaces, obliterates, tears down, or.destroys a political sign installed in accordance with the provisions of this Code shall be subject to being charged with an infraction purSuant to Section 1122 of this Code. (j) Noncommercial signs in the public parkway, which is the area between the curb line and the private property line, are subject to the following additional restrictions and conditions: (1) No more than three (3) noncommercial signs shall be permitted in the parkway abutting any one (1) parcel of property. (2) Signs shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) square feet in size and four (4) feet in height above grade. (3) Signs shall be placed so that the edge of each sign is at least two (2) feet from the edge of the curb or street where there is no curb. Signs shall not be installed or maintained in any manner so as to impede pedestrian walkways, hinder disabled access, or constitute a hazard to or endanger persons using the sidewalks. (4) No sign shall be affixed to any traffic signal, utility pole, traffic control device, tree, or upon any other natural or man-made structure located within the parkway. (5) Signs shall not be located in any area which the City Engineer, acting pursUant to generally accepted engineering standards, determines that such sign would constitute a safety or traffic hazard. (6) Signs in'violation of this Section 9403d13(j) and political signs in the public parkway in violation of section 9403d13(g) shall be subject to removal by City in accordance with Section 9405g of this Code. (7) Any person, party or group posting such signs shall be liable to the City of Tustin, private property owners and the general public for any injury to persons or property resulting from the placement and maintenance of this Code. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1153 Page 4 B. Section 9403d(8) of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: . Advertising, incidental, and/or noncommercial signs mounted, painted, attached to, or placed upon windows and intended to be viewed from the exterior, unless prohibited in an approved master sign plan, provided that the aggregate area of such signs do not constitute more than twenty-five (25) percent of the window area upon which they are placed. The placement of political signs shall comply with Section 9403d13(g). C. Section 9402 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "Ornamental Sign" means a sign that includes decorative design details fabricated out of wrought iron, wood or similar product with the intent of making the sign more compatible with the residential property on which it is located. II. The City Council hereby amends and adds sign regulations for non-commercial signs including the timely removal of political signs in the City of Tustin. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of July, 1995. JIM POTTS Mayor MARY WYNN City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 95-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 95- 002 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: a. The request to approve Code Amendment 95-002 is .considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. S · A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. C· D . Whereby, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Tustin have considered evidence presented by the Community DeveloPment Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission and City Council have evaluated the proposed final' Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council, having final authority over Code Amendment 95-002, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to recommending approval of the proposed project., and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City Council has found that the project involves no potential for an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the pUblic review process, the City Council has found that, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ¸22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-59 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of July, 1995. JIM POTTS MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS MARY E. WYNN, 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 five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 95-59 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on~ the 3rd day of July, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER~NOES: oCOUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk ITEM NO. 4 Y O deport to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MAY 22, 1995 -CODE ~MENT 95-002 CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 CITYWIDE CITYWIDE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD'NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. AN AMENDMENT TO THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE TO AMEND REGULATIONS RELATED TO POLITICAL SIGNS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3347; and 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95- 002 by adopting Resolution No. 3348, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND On April 24, 1995 the Planning Commission continued consideration of Code Amendment 95-002 to their May 22, 1995 meeting. During the public testimony portion of the meeting Mr. Berklee Maughan expressed concerns regarding the proposed Ordinance and submitted his comments in writing to the City staff and City Attorney (Attachment D). After some additional discussion between the Plannin9 Commission Report Code Amendment 95-002 May 22, 1995 Page 2 Commission, both the City' Attorney and Community Development Director recommended that the Code amendment be continued to permit the City Attorney and staff to confer and respond to the issues identified by the Commission and Mr. Maughan and.to recommend additional changes to the Ordinance. Subsequent to the April 24, 1995 meeting, the City Attorney prepared two memorandums (May 2, 1995 and May 12, 1995)which are attached and respond to the issues/concerns regarding the previous draft of the Ordinance. In addition, the City Attorney has analyzed a new political sign ordinance being considered by the City of Irvine. The Ordinance has been re-drafted to include all the changes'recommended by the City Attorney. The City Attorney will be available to discuss recommended modifications to the Ordinance. CONCLUSION. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Code Amendment 95-002 by adopting Resolution No. 3348 as submitted or revised. Assistant Director Attachments: Attachment A - City Code Section 9403 Attachment B - City Attorney Memos, May 2, 1995 and May 12, 1995 Attachment C - City of Irvine's Political Sign Regulations Attachment D - Letter from Mr. Berklee Maughan Initial Study/Negative Declaration Resolution Nos. 3347 and 3348 RW: br: kbm\ CA9 5 0 0 2 .'pc ATTACHMENT A CODE SECTION 9403 d 13 TUSTIN CITY CODE SIGN REGULATIONS 9403d 11.(e) 13. Political signs having to do with any issue, candidate or group of candidates in any district, municipal, county, state or federal election shall be permitted subject to the following provisions: (a) No person shall install or maintain or cause to be installed or maintained any sign which simulates or imitates in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign or signal, or which makes use of words "Stop,", "Look,", "Danger," or any other words, phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. (b) No person shall affLx a sign, on any public property or right-of-way including a street, median, island, sidewalk, traffic signal, utility pole, traffic control device, tree or parkway, except as pe. rrnitted by section 9403d13(g), following. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to exhibit, post or display, or cause to be exhibited, posted, or displayed upon any sign, anything of an obscene nature. (d) Signs consisting of any moving, illuminated, swinging, rotating, flashing, blinking, fluctuating or otherwise animated light are prohibited. (e) The permission 'of the property owner is required for signs placed on private property. (fl Signs on private property shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet in size and ten (10) feet in height above grade. (g) Other than on private property, political signs are authorized in public parkways (defined as the area between the curb line and the private property line), subject to the following restrictions, procedures and conditions: (1) No-more than three (3) political signs shall be permitted in the parkway abutting any one (1) parcel of property. (2) Signs shall be limited to five (5) square feet in size 'and four (4) feet in height, above grade. (3) Signs shall not be attached in any manner so as to impede pedestrian walk- ways or constitute a hazard to or endanger persons using the sidewalks. (4) . Signs shall not be located in any area which the City Engineer, acting pur- suant to generally accepted engineering standards determines that such sign would constitute a. safety or traffic, hazard. (5) Any person, party or group posting such signs shall be liable to the City of Tustin, private property owners and the general public for any injury to persons or property resulting from the placement and maintenance of such signs. (6) Every sign shall contain sticker to be obtained from the Department of Com- munity Development which shows the posting date. All signs shall be re- movecfwithin ninety ~ (90) days of the posting date. (7) Every sign shall contain the name, address and phone number of the cam- paign committee, written in indelible ink. (h) Signs in violation of this Code shall be removed 'by the City subject to the en- forcement procedures of section 9405h of this chapter. (i) Any person who intentionally defaces, obliterates, tears down, or destroys any political sign installed in accordance with the provisions of this Code shall be charged pursuant to the general penalty provisions of this Code. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (7~4) 573-3~05 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Code Amendment 95-002 Project Location: Project Description: Project Proponem: City of Tustin, Orange County Add provisions tO City Code Smct~nn~ 9401 related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Rita Westfield Telephone: (714) 573-3109 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by.the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON D~e February 16, 1995 NEGDE~PM5 3704.A' March 7, 1995 Ccohristinmmu enitA~ DS ehivne~loetOn pment 1~' ector COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin; C. xt 92680 (714) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY L BACKGROUND Name of Proponent City of Tustin Address and Phone Number of Proponent 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 -~'- Date Check List Submitted Att: Rita Westfield, Assistant Director, Community D~v~luFm~,L D~Fa~Lment Agency Requiring Check List Name of Proposal, if applicable City of Tustin Code Amendment 95-002 He ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ao Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Disruptions, disp!acements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geol0~i~ or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or offthe site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or. stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE NO . . Exposure of people or property to g6ologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, Or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: m Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or firesh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runofEt. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oXygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? · o fi.' Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?- i. Exposure of people or propert_y to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Plm~t Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants · (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? - YES MAYBE c. Introduction of new species of plants intO an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing speCies? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ao Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals.. (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms o~ insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered spedes of animals? c. Introduction Of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? YES MAYBE 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light' and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources? · b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewab!e natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ao A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? I! b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency I---I ! I evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or '- ~wth rate of the ~human population of an area7 12. Housing_ Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing7 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air tr~_ffi¢? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. · .Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposa! result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist~,g sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE .6. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or. substantial' alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ao Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. W'fll the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 21. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: .. ~.' .The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? . bo Adverse physical or aestheti.c effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? YES MAYBE NO- 22. ~l~Iandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe 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? bo Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). Co Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES MAYBE DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHMENT A IV. 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 in Attachment A attached hereto have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date INITSTLID. Pld5 3702A February 16, 1995 Signature Name (Prim) Title Rita Westfield Assistant Director. Community Development Department PART III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR CODE AMENDMENT 95-002 BACKGROUND Tustin City Code Section 9401 establishes provisions related to regulation of design of signs and sign structures within t~e City of Tustin. The current Section does.not adequately address the placement, maintenance, timing and reasonable removal of political campaign signs after an election. Furthermore, this Section does not include provisions for the placement of non-commercial signs on residential properties. Theproposed amendment would set reasonable time, place and manner regulations for political campaign signs and non-commercial signs to protect the Community from blight and to ensure an aesthetically pleasing environment while also protecting free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The proposed amendment would apply throughout the City. 1. EARTH Items A throuqh G - "No": The proposed code amendment would not result in changes to existing earth conditions, topography or grOund features. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. · AIR Items A throuqh C - "No'": Based on review of AQMD standards for preparing Environmental Impact Reports, this project would not result in any degradation to the existing air quality. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin -City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Code Amendment 95-002 February 16, 1995 Page 2 Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code AQMD Standards Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required. · WATER : Items A throuqh I - "No": The proposed code amendment would not result in any changes to existing water conditions. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. e PLANT LIFE · Items A throuqh D - "No": The proposed code amendment would not result in any changes to existing plant life. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required. · ANIMAL LIFE Items A throuqh D - "No": The proposed amendment would not result in any changes to existing animal life. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non- commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Code Amendment 95-002 February 16, 1995 Page 3 Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. 6. NOISE Items A and B - "No": The proposed code amendment would not result in any changes to existing noise levels. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non- commercial signs on residential property. No development wOuld be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required. · · LIGHT AND GLARE "No": The code amendment would not produce new light or ..glare. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to, political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. SourceS: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code · Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required. LAND USE "No": The code amendment would not result in a substantial alteration Of present or planned land uses. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the TUstin City Code related to political campaign signs and non- commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal.- Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses code Amendment 95-002 February 16, 1995 Page 4 · NATURAL RESOURCES : Items A and B - "No": The cOde amendment would not result in any changes to natural resources. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required· 10. RISK OF UPSET Items A and B - "No": The code amendment would not increase risk of upset. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required. 11. POPULATION "No": The proposed code amendment would not increase or decrease the population of the City. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: 'Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Code Amendment 95-002 February 16, 1995 Page 5 12. HOUSING "No": The propoSed code amendment would not create a need for additional housing. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. S6urces: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. 13. 14. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Items A throuqh F - "No": The code amendment would not result · in additional vehicular movement or demand for new parking and no impacts on existing transportation systems or present circulation patterns are expeCted. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin city Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required. PUBLIC SERVICES Items A through F - "No": The code amendment would not have an impact on or result in an increased demand for or alter any public service. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: PropoSed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitorinq Required' None required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Code Amendment 95-002 February 16, 1995 Page 6 15. ENERGY Items A and B - "No": The code amendment would not increase the demand for or consumption of energy. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non- commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. 16. UTILITIES Items A through F - "No": The code amendment would not increase the demand for traditional public utilities, such as water, natural gas, storm drains or sewers. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non- commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. · 17. HUMAN HEALTH Items A and B - "No": The proposed code amendment would not create new health hazards to those living or working in the vicinity. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin'City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required. Exhibit A - Initial Study Responses Code Amendment 95-002 February 16', 1995 Page 7 18. SOLID WASTE "No": The code amendment will not create additional solid waste. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of. the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: ~Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None required. 19. AESTHETICS "No": The code amendment would not impact any sCenic vista or view. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code ~related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment : Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. 20. RECREATION "No": The proposal will not create a need for additional recreational services or impact existing services. The proposed amendment would clarify and update current provisions of the Tustin City Code related to political campaign signs and non-commercial signs on residential property. No development would be associated with the.proposal. Sources: Proposed Amendment Tustin City Code Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None reqUired. ATTACHMENT B City AttorneY Memos, May 2, 1995 and May 12, 1995 LAW OFFICES OF ROURKE, WOODRUFF & SPRADLIN MEMORANDUM TO: Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin FROM: City Attorney DATE:' May 2, 1995 RE: Revised Ordinance Regarding Noncommercial Signs, Including Political Signs Enclosed herein is a revised sign ordinance.- After the discussion at the first Planning Commission meeting, additional citizen input and upon further reflection, I have substantially overhauled the organization of the ordinance. In that process, I have also made some substantive revisions. Also, I am checking on recent revisions to Irvine's political sign regulations to see how they compare, and will let you know. Compliance with Latest Cases Current sign regulations deal strictly with political signs. In the City's code, political signs are a type of noncommercial sign, and are defined as "having to do with any issue, candidate or group of candidates in any district, municipal, county, state or federal election." However, noncommercial signs also include signs containing "a message advocating, criticizing, or otherwise relating to the political views, opinions, contentions on labor disputes or similar controversies." In order to be consistent with the latest First Amendment cases, the City's sign code must permit all types of noncommercial signs on private property. Such signage may not be limited to political signage as currently provided in Tustin's code. The pdor draft addressed this issue, but I have revised the ordinance to eliminate duplicate provisions. Sign Blight Current sign regulations allow political signs in public parkways, but require such signs to contain a sticker showing the posting date and require such signs to be removed within ninety days of the posting date. Them are no limitations regarding the length of time for posting or the removal of political signs on pdvate property. The City Council has expressed concern about political signs remaining up long after an election. The proposed code amendment would restrict the posting of political signs in both public parkways and on private property to ninety days before an election, and would require removal .within five Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin May 2, 1995 Page 2 days after an election. It is our opinion that these restrictions on the timing of the placement of political signs, and the extension of the restrictions to private property will help combat the sign blight that is of concern to the City Council, without undue influence with free speech. Other noncommercial signs can remain indefinitely, providing the signs are not a safety hazard. Changing Size Requirements for Noncommercial Signs on Private Property is Premature I have revised the ordinance to return to the size limitation of existing City regulations, which is a maximum of 32 square feet in size and 10 feet above height above grade. Such a size restriction is similar to those found in other cities. For example, in Irvine, political signs may be 16 square feet and 20 feet above grade. In Yorba Linda, such signs may be up to 32 square feet and 6 feet tall. While the City may regulate the size of noncommercial signs (including political signs) for aesthetic reasons, its regulations must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve its objectives so as not to unduly interfere with free speech. Commercial sign regulations don't have to meet such a stringent test. Accordingly, what is appropriate for commercial signs is not necesSarily appropriate for noncommercial. It is my opinion that by restricting the timing of the placement of political signs, and by extending those restrictions to private property, that the City is carefully focusing on sign blight in a manner that does not overly restrict free expression. Further restrictions on the size of signs and different restrictions for residential and commercial property are not warranted at this time. If after the new regulations have had a chance to work (after the next City Council election, for example), and the City obtains evidence that the community believes there is an excessive number of signs in noxious sizes and shapes, then it would be appropriate to address size requirements. In addition, while there may be legitimate reasons~ for having different size requirements for commercial and residential areas, without a study of sign blight in the two areas and a chance for the new regulations to work, it is my opinion that the City should be cautious in drawing such distinctions about noncommercial signs on commercial vs. residential property. Accordingly, it is my recommendation that the existing size regulations that apply to both residential and commercial property not be changed. Signage in Public Parkway The City is entitled to be more restrictive with respect to its regulation of signage in public parkways. It may, for example, forbid signage altogether. It may impose reasonable size requirements. But it cannot discriminate between political signs and other types of 1100-00022 12495 1 -- Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin May 2, 1995 Page 3 noncommercial signage. Accordingly, to the extent we allow political signs in the parkway, based on the latest United States Supreme Court cases, noncommercial signs must be permitted as well. Commissioner Lunn has expressed a concern about placement of political signs in the public parkway that may be mistakenly attributed to the property owner whose property abuts the public parkway. Unfortunately, it would not be appropriate to require the property owner to give their consent to signage in the public parkway. However, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that noncommercial signage in the public parkways be eliminated altogether. This would be a change from existing regulations that allow political signs in the parkways. However, the City may be more restrictive with its own property. A detailed explanation of other changes follows: Section I - The title of the ordinance and discussion in Section I have been amended to clarify that the regulations deal with noncommercial signs, including political signs. In the City's code, political signs are a species of noncommercial signs. Section 2 - Instead of having two nearly identical sections, one dealing with political signs, and another dealing with noncommercial signs, I have combined the two to simply deal with noncommercial signage. Within that section, there is in subsection (g), about the time limits for political signs. In addition, subsection (h) deals with the size of political signs in the public parkway. I have eliminated subsection (h)(7) that requires signs to contain the name, address and phone number of the person causing the sign to be installed. Because of a recent United States. Supreme Court decision, (Mclntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission), this provision should be removed. Under the current regulations, political signs in violation of the code are subject to the enforcement provisions of Section 9405h. This is unduly restrictive as to the public parkway because Section 9405g provides for the summary abatement of illegal signs on public property! I have revised the ordinance accordingly, so that sign violations on private property are. handled by Section 9405h and those on public property are handled by Section 9405g. The only exception for private property would be a public health or safety situation where summary removal would be permitted. Even then, summary destruction is not warranted. We have to watch due process violations on private property and restrict summary removal to safety considerations. 1100-00022 12495_1 Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin May 2, 1995 Page 4 In Section 3, I have added a sentence that would require political window signs to comply with the time limits for political signs. One question I had was whether the safety regulation in 0)(3), see page 3, should apply to private property as well? I would be pleased to meet with staff at your convenience, and go over the changes with you. LEJ:cas Enclosure CC: William A. Huston, City Manager Rita VVestfield, Assistant Director of Community Development M. Lois Bobak, Esq. 1100-00022 12495_1 LAW OFFICES OF ROURKE, WOODRUFF & SPi~DLIN A PROFESSIONAL CORP(~I=~TION MEMORANDUM TO: Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin FROM: City Attorney DATE: May 12, 1995 RE: Code Amendment 95-002 - City Attorney's Revisions I have made corrections to Sections 13 (b) and 13 (J)(4) to include tree wells. Since we have done away with a separate section on noncommercial signs, I believe these are the only sections that needed revision. Our last redraft returns to existing code language on .size of signs(see 13 (f)). We originally proposed language that would have clarified that this is a "total aggregate sign area." Staff proposed that signs be limited to one (1) per street frontage. Both our original proposal and staff's proposal, are arguably more restrictive than the current regulations. And while I am aware of at least one ordinance (the new one being proposed by Irvine) that restricts "election" signs to one (1) per street frontage "for a candidate or proponent/opponent of a ballot measure," without a study of sign blight, it is my opinion that such a restriction would not pass constitutional muster. We could try to go with the aggregate idea as originally proposed, but I don't really know that it gets us anywhere. I think it's far better to simply leave the sign size regulations the way they are and obServe what occurs at the next election. We can take pictures, do a survey and then come back and see if we've got a problem with sign blight and try to address it at that time. We are doing something about political sign blight in the ordinance by restricting the time that political signs may be up on pdvate property. You will recall, under our existing regulations, there is no restriction on the time that political signs can be up on private property. The current timing restrictions apply only to the public parkway. We are also requiring the removal of signs after an election. Accordingly, in my opinion we are doing enough to address the currently perceived problem. Therefore, it is my recommendation that for the time being we stay with the language that's in the code now as far as the size of signage and not address numbers of signs on private property. With respect to noncommercial signs in public parkways, we can prohibit them altogether. However, such prohibition would have to include political signs. In other words, we can't separate out certain kinds of noncommercial signs, i.e., political signs relating to 1100-00022 13075 1 -- Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin May 12, 1995 Page 2 elections, and allow them and not allow other noncommercial signs. Our definition of noncommercial signs include signs that carry political messages, even though they may not be related to an election. In the United States Supreme Court case of Ladue v. Gilleo, the court specifically held that a city may not prohibit signs with "political messages" on private property. The sign in question had nothing to do with an election and was simply a political statement about the Persian Gulf war. What we might do instead is see What happens at the next election and see what happens in terms of other types of noncommercial signs in the public parkway. We can always come back and address it. We are much better in the First Amendment area if we have a study evidencing a problem and then craft our ordinance to address that problem. Right now I think we are fine with the narrowly tailored restrictions we are imposing regarding timing. I have enclosed a copy of the ordinance that the City of Irvine is currently considering. It is my understanding, however, that their city attorney did not prepare this language. While I see certain improvements in the ordinance over their previous one, I also see certain problems. Their previous ordinance limited political signs to thirty days prior to and seven days after an election. In my opinion the thirty days prior to was overly restrictive and Tustin's ordinance was much better in that regard. They have reduced the allowable size of political signs. It used to be no larger than 16 square feet and 20 feet above grade, and now they are proposing 12 square feet and 20 feet above grade. In their matrix they talk about political signs and "election" signs. They only allow one election sign per street frontage "for a candidate or proponent/opponent of a ballot measure." I think this is an overly restrictive fine tuning of allowable political signage and could be overturned by a court. Accordingly, I don't think the Irvine ordinance is a model for Tustin. If we want to say something in the staff report about it, I would simply say that Irvine's ordinance is generally similar to Tustin's, with the exception that where Irvine previously restricted political signs to being up thirty days prior to and seven days after an election, they have now removed the "thirty days prior to" and require signs to be taken down ten days following an election. Irvine's code does not address other noncommercial signs of a "political" nature that have nothing to do with an election. The proposed amendments to Tustin's code are in accordance with the latest Supreme Court cases in that regard. Finally, Irvine's code has some detailed restrictions on the number of signs per street frontage. While such restrictions may be appropriate in the future, the City of Tustin should not adopt such restrictions until a study has been done of sign blight that would 1100-00022 13075 1 -- Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager City of Tustin May 12, 1995 Page 3 indicate such restrictions are necessary. Let's have a conference call or talk further if necessary. LEJ:cas Enclosures- Revised Ordinance Copy of Proposed Revised Sign Ordinance for the City of Irvine CC: William A. Huston, City Manager Rita Westfield, Assistant Director of Community Development M. Lois Bobak, Esq. 1100-00022 13075 1 ATTACHMENT C City of Irvine's Political Sign Regulations 05/09/95 15'17 '~714 724 1 CITY OF IRVINE / [~003 4. Political Well or No On pdvm 12 ~I.~Y. WM: $~1 Pe~ from No 2Q ~; ow~r ~ P~ ~ I~ ~ ~of, f~o ~20 ' ~ ~~ or ~n 150 ~ PU~O fe~ of · ~ in--don: I ~at 1 d~ ~ ~ ~n 1 ~0 ~r, f~t ~ ~ r~ g~, h~ P'*~n~d ~ ~ m~,im Cannot bo i~ubEc ~ight~f- w~v. 1. I~.}~ be rm'noved no later than 10 days ,.ftur 2. If a sTgrl i~ hat renmved in th. timu .p~dfi~l in rem~lm No.1 above, the City may re~er cum for rain-raj from the ~ndJd~ca ~lvo~at~d on 'the ~ig.. R=97% 714 724 6440 05-09-95 04:26PM PO03 ~50 05/0~/95 .F'. / . 16:16 '/~71¢ 72~ e440 c~ $~ions: V.E-601. Iment. v.£-603. Sign Regulations. - No change is Pmpo~d for seetlom V.E-601 through V,E-602,1 - V,E~02.2. T~o~ Baxmer Pemits, CITY OF IRV.,,.INE ~ 001 ., . - ~,. Co~ or Susin~ O~gan~: Except/on rO ti}e 'rini{~ Lin~: Seasonal Uses, as defined in Section V.E-219.1, shaU be allowed to d/sphy a Temp~ Bmmer for tl~ Use Pmait a~ spec/f~ in Secfi~ V.E~219.8. Each Smson~ Use may have only one Tamporary Barn]er ~ suzet ar paltinlI lot fmn~ ide~Ii~g the current Seasmud ~ ~ ~ seasonal use w. cun/ng at the same loc~tien will require -~umng m mt existing ~ center. A temporary bznne~ is hmmded to/nfonn the public of a unique (30) squa~ fee~ Bs,m~ te~ is limimi to ri~ ~mnerdal name, commerd~ ceu~ cr imsin~s logo, ~vem, ~ d~lte~., days .~ time. informa~ nau~ b~ o~ ~cci~c im~ for - No further dumges are pro~ for ~ sec~ae tlmm~h V.E-iiB.1 H - V.E-603.1. I. Political_ Si.{g, nS: Temporary political si_t,,.~ may be phced on private property with that OWfl~r'S pm'mission or in the public ril~hz of way for a per/od not to exceed ten (10) days fo~ng an election provided they nwet the following crimia: I. Politloal .~it~ mast ,tot r.o,~m.~ a Waffic hazard. 2. Political signs may bo no larger than 12 (twelve) squ~e fee~. 3. Polifcal signs may be located no higher than 20 (twenty) feet above grade. 4. Political signs an~ prohibited from being phced on City traffic or devices iucMding di_re~n~.l si~qas, advisory signs, regoJatioa signs and traffic sig~--nli'r~d in _~_aeclions, or where signs may bc obsm.~cr, ed fi-om thc driver's view. R=97% 714 724 6440 05-09-95 04:26PM P001 ~50 05/09/95 16:10 ~'714 724 CITY OF IRVINE ..... / O02 R=97% 714 724 6440 05-09-95 04:28PM PO02 ~50 ATTACHMENT D Letter from Mr. Berklee Maughan I , April 24, 1995 CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION 300 Centennial Way Tustil~, California 92~80 Subject: Code' A~endme,~t 95-002 (Political sign amendments) Applicant: CITY. OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY 5~;ELOPI{ENT DEPARTMENT l~r. Chairman a~d Planuing Commissio~crs, I welcome tile applicatlts desire to impose regulations to require the immediate sad re~so,,flb].e r~,noval of political signs followil~E an election, }{ow~ver, I have less enthusiasm rom some of the amendments to the political s~n code in the p~Oposed The applicanZ s~tes ~i~aZ these amendments would sot have an adverse a~ect on the welfore of the residents, Bu~ can ~his propose~ ordinance pass consZitutional mus~er? ~ do not see a City Attorney's opinion a~m~h~d ~o th~ p~opo~ed ordinance as evidence that it will, Amendmen~ one to the cons~itution of the Onited States says con~ress p~OteC%S individuals f~om censorship. Si~ce 19~5, the Supreme Cou~t of the United States has p~oiected f~ee speech s~sinst interference by state o~ local ~ove~nments. within tile City ra~her than on an individuals free speech rights. Some of the la~l~ua~e used in this ordi~snce suggests tl~st some persons can l~ve more /'reedom o~ speech, tha~ others. Two oX my concerns shout this proposed ordinance are in 9403 d (la) of the proposed ordin2n~e (page 2) items (f) and (~). Item (f) .re,ds as follows: "Si~na~e permitted on' private residential property shall be limited to one si~n per street fmonts~e." When March 1996 comes, the date ~or C~lifornis's Primmry Election mad the Tustin City Council Elec2[on, does the City want to prevent r~sidents from pl2cinE tl%ree different cs~dldate:signs in their yard since there are three council seats up for election, ~nd perhaps some signs for state candidates? Does the City want to limit persons free speecl~ to one political si~n? Next what is the justification for limiting one sign per street ~rontage on private residential property and not limiting the x~umber o~ signs on other ~nan private residential property in item (g) of this ordinance. The City can not give more Xreedom of SDeech rights to one individual and less to another. There-was a Supreme Court case last year that held that a city could not prevent tho placement of non-commercial signs on private Property. Tus~ln's present City Code already permits political signs on amy private property, residential or non-residential private property mad it does not censor anybodys free speech rights. What is the · applicant trying to fix with these new amendments to the political sign code? Furthermore, items (f) and (g) discriminate between the sate of political signs. According to item (f) private residential'property owners are limited to signs with a maxium of six square fee~ in size and four feet in height, while item (g) permits other than private ~esidential property owners (that everyone else) to have signs 32 square feet in size and ten feet in height. The present sign code permits everyone to have signs 32 square feet in size and ten feet in height or equal sign s~ze and sign height. Property owners should have the right to give or deny permission for political signs on any private property, but should not have the ability to provide more visibilitx for political signs, especially on the same street. Candidates alway~ pos~ political signs on streets with heavy traffic and most of these streets have residential and non-residential private proper~y located along them. Freedom'of speech is a necessity., The constitution guarantees it. Yet ~ome o~ the ~mendments to Tustin's political sign code censor the residents free speech. you have any questions, please call me at (714) 832-4848. Sincerely, Berklee Maughan 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25' 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3347 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TusTIN, CERTIFYING THE. FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION ASADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 95- 002 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. . . . The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A· Be The request to approve Code Amendment 95-002 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Ce Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. D· The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission,' having recommending authority over Code Amendment 95-002, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to recommending approval of the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning Commission has found that the project involves no potential for an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public r~view process, the Planning Commission has found that, the proposed projects would not have a significant effect on the environment. 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 '23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3347 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of May, 1995. Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I a~the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3347 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of May, 1995. Recording Secretary 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 RESOLUTION NO. 3348 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT 95-002, AMENDING AND ADDING SIGN ~REGULATIONS SETTING TIME, PLACE AND MANNER REGULATIONS FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS AND NON- COMMERCIAL SIGNS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO SECTIONS 9403D13 (A-J), and 9403D$. The Planning Commission of the City' of Tustin d~es hereby resolve as follows: Ie The Planning Commission finds and determines as follow~: ae It has been determined that there is a need to impose regulations to require the immediate and reasonable removal of political campaign signs following an election, to establish Standards for non-commercial signs on residential property; and Be Ce The amendments would not have an adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare on residents or businesses of the City; and .The amendments would be cOnsistent with the General Plan in that they would not negatively impact the orderly growth and development of the City. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Community .Development' Department prepare an informational handout summarizing and graphically depicting the proposed Ordinance provisions as they might apply to an election and that the City Clerk include the handout in all election handout materials provided to political candidates. III. The~,-Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval 'of Code Amendment 95-002, amending and adding sign regulations setting time, place and manner regulations for political campaign signs and non-commercial signs , on residential property to Sections 9403d13 (A-J), and 9403d8 as shown in Exhibit A attached herein and incOrporated herein by reference. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3348 Page-2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 22nd.day of May, 1995. Chai~Ba~nE~--~. · Recording Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3348 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,. held on the 22nd day of May, 1995. Recording Secretary