Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC REPORT WORKSHOP SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC R-O-W ITEM #2 TUSTI N Inter-Com DATE MARCH 28, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION Q1111.i)I NIS C)IIR FLITLRI F{ONOR,NO OUR PA%1 FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: WORKSHOP — SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY In June of 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, and determined that categorizing signs based on their content violated the First Amendment. In response to this decision, cities nationwide need to review their existing sign codes to avoid conflicting with or violating the First Amendment. On February 21 , 2017, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop at which the issue of signs in the public right-of-way was discussed, and staff was directed to take the following steps:. 1 . Conduct outreach to the real estate industry, non-profit organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, and local schools; 2. Research the sign ordinances of neighboring cities; 3. Hold a Planning Commission workshop; 4. Draft an ordinance with content neutral regulations that allows signs in the public right-of-way; and, 5. Present recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. The purpose of this workshop is to: 1 . Provide stakeholders and the general public with a general overview of the Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ Supreme Court case; 2. Describe the outcome of the decision and how it impacts Tustin; 3. Show some examples of impacted signs; 4. Identify possible content neutral regulations and next steps; and, 5. Obtain input from the public and direction from the Commission. Outreach for this workshop included the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, local non-profit organizations, the Tustin Unified School District, the two local associations of realtors, local places of worship, and other stakeholders who may have an interest in this issue. it"C-e_c 4e Scott Reekstin Principal Planner Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation Slides SR:pereport`Signs in the Public Right of Way Workshop.doc 3/22/2017 SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-GF-WAY Planning Commission Workshop March 2$, 2017 BACKGROUND In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against an Arizona town's sign regulation that regulated one sign differently than another based on its content. Premise was that the town's sign code treated signs in public rights-of-way directing people to a small church's worship services differently than signs with other messages. The town's code was an example of content-based categories of regulation. 1 3/22/2017 BACKGROUND THE CASE IN PICTURES X 11:e�ic�tue7i .i�.�;>r �tic� in ( ;ill��•rt Iileoir;.glcai srq.�s 20 0.-M f1me limit BACKGROUND The Court identified differing restrictions on various categories of signs: * Ideological Signs * Political Signs Temporary Directional Signs Ninth Circuit had held that categorizing regulations this way was not prohibited "Content-Based" regulation as long as the regulations within each category were applied evenly without regard to viewpoint expressed on the sign. Supreme Court concluded that categorizing signs based on their content violated the First Amendment. 2 3/22/2017 IMPACT ON SIGN CODES EMMMA=10,81 Min, I The general rule: a Sign codes must not categorize signs based on their content. a Court held that the Town of Gilbert's Sign Code provisions were content-based regulations of speech. IN SUMMARY If you need to read the sign in order to determine what regulations apply to it, the ordinance probably violates the First Amendment. 3 3/22/2017 EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED SIGNS .; 44919 S r iJ �4w�suxr r p un EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED SIGNS If you allow these: Oct.24;m- . �^ BUY TICKETS AT TACEA.IIRG ,7,,T Cf" rte' :.rR 4 3/22/2017 EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED SIGNS If you allow these: EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED SIGNS If you allow these: M I Ab+' 5 3/22/2©17 EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED SIGNS If you allow these: MIN THEN THESE SIGNS MUST BE ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATIONS GUNSEBOLAR• OBAMA �7;� � HAI�fCS AFRIC low " i QN � ► UX rr "Y R u'oo� iYT +tERICA'" 6 3/22/2017 TUSTIN CODE ALLOWS Banners a Grand Opening Events a Special Events C3 Nonprofit Events a Public Events CO Decorative Flags v , Temporary Directlona formt1 I Sig us in public ROW/Parkway Area 49 o Garage Sale Signs S"('6o Lost or Found Signs, Including Pets ,1116 a Open House Signs S Po;itical Signs Protected Speech Signs Human Signs Seasonal or Holiday Signs SIGN CODE HISTORY 2007 Code Amendment - signs in the public right-of-way ©Real estate signs o©pen house signs dPolitical signs oFree speech signs oHuman signs aCertain freeway-facing banners ONonprofit organization temporary signs 7 3/22/2017 OVERVIEW Signs with the following types of messages must be regulated in a similar manner. The rules applicable to noncommercial and commercial signs in the public right-of-way must apply equally to the others in the same category. sits unipV �t BUY TICKETS AT TACFA.URG CONTENT NEUTRAL REGULATIONS -. W. time lace manner Rules regulating sign sizes regardless of its content. Rules regulating the location in which signs can be placed — signs can be prohibited in medians. Commercial vs. noncommercial signs. Lighted or unlighted signs. Signs with fixed messages or changeable copy signs (electronic billboards). Rules regulating signs on public property vs. private property. Signs placed on commercial property vs. residential property. Time Periods allowed. 8 3/22/2017 POSSIBLE APPROACHES For consideration: a Allow all public right-of-way signs with few restrictions. a Restrict - no public right-of-way signs allowed. a Allow a middle-ground with content neutral regulations: ■ Example — signs are allowed for defined period(s), allow for uniform sign size and number restrictions regardless of its content, identify the location where signs can be placed, etc. ;e. Do nothing --- implement existing Tustin City Code. JOINT 'WORKSHOP DIRECTION Joint PC/CC Workshop held on February 21, 2017. Conduct outreach to real estate industry, non-profit organizations, Chamber of Commerce, and schools. Research ordinances of neighboring cities. Hold a Planning Commission workshop. Draft an ordinance with content neutral regulations that allows signs in the public right-of-way. Present recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. 9 3/22/2017 SURVEY OF OC CITIES Staff surveyed all Orange County cities. Focus on political signs and real estate signs in the public right- of-way. Majority are inconsistent with the Reed v. Gilbert case. The cities of Irvine and Costa Mesa have recently amended their sign codes. SURVEY OF OC CITIES REAL ESTATE SIGNS P IN PUBLIC ROW #OF CITIES 7 4 ALLOWING WITHOUT CAVEATS #OF CITIES 10 4 ALLOWING WITH CAVEATS #OF CITIES 17 26 PROHIBITING TOTAL 34 34 10 3/22/2017 OPTIONS — commercial signs Maximum size of 4 square feet. Maximum height of 4 feet. Maximum of 2 per commercial enterprise per intersection. Must be within 25-300 feet of an intersection. Must not be posted between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Must be associated with a Tustin commercial enterprise that is not eligible for permanent signage. Sidewalk signs associated with a commercial enterprise in the CR District may be allowed in the CR District, subject to design guidelines. OPTIONS — noncommercial signs Maximum size of 4 square feet. Maximum height of 4 feet. Maximum of 1 per sponsoring entity abutting a parcel. Must be within 25-300 feet of an intersection. May be posted for up to 45 days. Could be limited to certain times of the year. Must indicate posting date on the back of the sign. Owner approval required if posted directly adjacent to the street frontage of a single family residence. 11 3/22/2017 NEXT STEPS Receive public input. Receive direction from the Commission. Draft ordinance. Provide public notice of public hearing. Present recommendations to the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Present recommendations to the City Council at a public hearing. QUESTIONS 12 3/22/2017 PUBLIC INPUT DIRECTION �3