The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 2 SIGN CODE EXCEP 03-01-82NEW BUSINESS No. 2 3-1-82 DATE: March 1, 1982 \46 w% Inter -Com TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Sign Code Exception Applicant: Mercury Savings Location: 1095 Irvine Boulevard - Mercury Savings & Loans Assoc. Request: Four Square Foot Sign (8'x6") BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION The provisions of Sign Code Ordinance 684 authorizes the display of one business identification sign per store wall up to a maximum of 64 sq. ft. per face. Mercury Savings & Loan would like to display a new service sign on the front elevation of the automatic teller machine of their Tustin Branch. Authority for such a request is in Section 9470a(3) of the Tustin City Code which states: The City Council may grant authorization for signs which are not within the purview of the standards and criteria established by this Chapter, due to unusual circumstances related to the development, activity or location of the proposed signing, subject to: Proposed signing does not exceed more than one in number nor more than 15% in area of the aggregate size of signs authorized by the criteria of the district. A finding of hardship need not be determined to approve the sign. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approval by minute order of the sign as applied for. MAC:jh 2-23-82 a � a r a a 3- -_ a a a ■ February 1, 1982 M]'E'd 11 LDXCURY SAVINGS a federal savings and loan association Executive Offices 7812 Edinger Ave., P.O. Box 1010 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92647 Community Development Department City of Tustin Tustin, California 92680 Attention: Mr. A. G. Warren, Senior Planner Gentlemen: Mercury Savings proposes to install an automatic teller machine in its branch office located at 1095 Irvine Boulevard in the City of Tustin. This ATM installation will provide service to the public on a 7—day week, 24—hour basis. We request a "sign code exception" under the premise that the statement 1124—HOUR SERVICE" is directional in nature, and with a sign dimension of 8 feet long by 6 inches high will add only 4 square feet to the building signing. The current sign on the building covers an area of 296 square feet. Very truly yours, TMERCSAVI Gson Executive Vice President MK:fm Enclosure: 10 copies ATM Elevations FSLIC (714)842-9333 g3 r DATE: September 9, 1981 0 TO: Director, Community Development Department FROM: Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: Large "P" Unauthorized Real Estate Sign at 1872 Hampshire Road, Tustin Meadows (Western Partners Real Estate Agency) An inspection of the premises at 1872 Hampshire Road in Tustin Meadows this date reveals that the large unauthorized "P" Real Estate Sign posted by Western Partners Real Estate, has been removed. A small 1'' X 1z' cardboard real estate sign, 2 feet in height, is now currently posted on the subject property and it requires nYe orpermitas stipulate in Sign Ordinance 11684. YD R Public Services Assistant Community Development Department cc: All Council Members Tustin Meadows Community Association GS/ews DATE: TO: FROM: 0 AUGUST 3, 1981 Inter -Com 4E HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JAMES G. ROURKE, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL K. SPRADLIN, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: REGULATION OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURES AND THE REMOVAL THEREOF - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM (NO. 5) On July 2,.1981, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Metromedia v. San Diego. As members of the City Council will recall from our earlier Inter-Coms on this subject, this case involved the propriety of a San Diego ordinance pro- hibiting certain off-site billboards. Off-site billboards ate advertising structures which contain advertising copy unrelated to the business located on the property containing the billboard and are in contrast to on-site billboards which contain advertising copy directly related to the business located on the property containing the sign. The California Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the San Diego ordinance. In a plurality opinion, however, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the California Supreme Court and remanded the case back to the state court for further proceedings. Because the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court consisted of a plurity opinion (a decision in which the majority opinion of the Court was signed by only four Justices with two Justices concurring in a separate opinion with the majority and three Justices dissenting) it does not establish a binding precedent of law. The Court could substantially modify its position in future cases. While the full impact of the decision awaits further action by the California Supreme Court on remand, the U. S. Supreme Court decision would appear to establish the following principles: (1) A municipality may distinguish between off-site and on-site billboard advertising which is commercial in nature. (2) If a city has a sufficient basis for believing that bill- boards are traffic hazards and are unattractive, the city may - take steps to prohibit them. (3) Thus, off-site commercial billboards may be prohibited while on-site billboards are permitted. (4) If billboards are permitted in some zones or areas, a city must permit noncommercial billboards in those same zones or areas. Non-commercial billboards are those which contain advertisements for'political or charitable purposes, etc. 0 Inter -Com to The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Page Two August 3, 1981 0 Perhaps as important as the principles established in Metromedia v. San Diego are the issues left unresolved by the U. S. Supreme Court. In particular, the Court left three very important points for future resolution. First, the Court did not decide whether a city can ban all outdoor advertising structures. The plurality expressly reserved the determination of this issue for a future date. Two Justices con- curring in the opinion expressly concluded that such a ban would' be impermissible while two dissenting Justices did not discuss the issue and one dissenting Justice concluded that such a pro- hibition would be proper. Secondly, the Court did not consider, assuming that a total ban on billboards is permissible, whether a municipality must pay compensation as a prerequisite to requiring the removal of existing structures. This remains an open issue. Finally, the Court gave no consideration to advertising structures which may constitute a mixture between commercial and non- commercial advertising. For example, a sign with a copy such as "Buy American cars" sponsored by General Motors could conceivably be noncommercial in nature since it has political overtones. Even more blatantly, an advertiser might allocate an insignificant portion of the total surface area of a billboard for political or social (e.g., "Support the Red Cross") advertising and utilize the remaining space for commercial advertising in an effort to defeat municipal regulation. Resolution of these unresolved issues await further litigation in both the state and federal courts. Section 9462 of the Tustin City Code bans all advertising structures within the City. As stated above, the validity of this type of ordinance was not addressed by the U. S. Supreme Court. In our opinion, the Supreme Court will not be likely to approve a total ban in the future. We are convinced that any action by the City of Tustin to abate existing billboards in the City would result in lengthy litigation possibly ending before the U. S. Supreme Court. We believe that other cities throughout the nation are now facing the same problem as does Tustin. It may well be best for the City to await the litigation of these issues by others with much greater resources. In the meantime, the City can utilize its existing powers as a means for removal when such possibilities arise. For example, removal of the billboard Inter -Com to The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Page Three August 3, 1981 0 located at the corner of First and Prospect, next to the Mobil station, was obtained as a condition for approval of the application by Mobil Oil for a Conditional Use Permit to allow it to construct a covering at the service station. Future applications for building permits, variances, or conditional use permits, etc. should be scrutinized by the Community Develop- ment Department for the possibility of considering as an additional condition of approval the removal of an outdoor advertising structure located on the premises. DKS:cs:D:07/22/81 JGR:DKS:cs:R:08/03/81 cc: CT 5:02