Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC MINUTES 3-28-17 ITEM #2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION (MEETING LOCATION: CLIFTON C. MILLER COMMUNITY CENTER) MARCH 28, 2017 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER. Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Smith Commissioners Kozak, Mason, Thompson None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the March 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— MARCH 14, 2017 14, 2017 Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: meeting Minutes. That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the March 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason to approve the Minutes of the March 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PRESENTATION: 2. WORKSHOP -SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY The purpose of this workshop is to: provide stakeholders and the general public with a general overview of the Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ Supreme Court case; describe the outcome of the decision and how it impacts Tustin; show examples of impacted signs; identify possible content neutral regulations and next steps; and, obtain input from the public and direction from the Commission. Reekstin Presentation given. Smith Smith asked if the City has the ability to restrict non-commercial activity signs to non-profit signs located within the city. Kendig Kendig's response to Smith's question generally included: the City would not be able to distinguish between non-profit entities conducting business in the City or those that are not, with the exception of the restriction being applied to prohibit signs for those who already have existing permanent signs, specifically for commercial signs; and for non-commercial signs, the City would not be able to apply that restriction. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 1 of 11 Kozak Kozak referred to Page 11 of the presentation and asked why the City would have certain items, conditions or restrictions for commercial signs versus non-commercial signs (or vice versa) as far as the timing and number of days signs are up for allowable posting. Reekstin Reekstin's response generally included: some of the regulations are tailored to non-commercial signs differently than commercial signs; non- commercial signs tend to be less regulated than commercial signs because they include free speech/protected speech signs; the City is not supposed to regulate the non-commercial signs more than the commercial signs; and the City is trying to reduce sign proliferation and clutter. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated Reekstin's comment that the City is able to restrict commercial signs more than non-commercial signs which is why there may be more restrictions. Thompson Thompson requested some points of clarification: not discussing permanent signs, only temporary nature signs and whether they are non- commercial or commercial then will there be certain time limits as to how long they can be placed in public right of way (ROW); if the signs (i.e. political signs) are set back on both private properties and public ROW; design guidelines and applications; and would the City consider a business license requirement in order for the applicant to understand how signs are to be legally permitted as well as understand requirements for placing signs. Reekstin/Kendig In response to Thompson's question on private and public ROW, Reekstin stated that the regulations in the Tustin City Code (TCC) will continue to apply to private properties. Kendig further explained that signs on private properties are not currently in question only those in the ROW. When the City comes back to the Commission with separate regulations with signs on private properties, the City will be cognizant of the decision at that time. Binsack Binsack's comments generally included: the perception of signs within the public ROW is relative to a person who enjoys seeing their signs versus those who prefer seeing a pristine public ROW; signs are often not placed legally in the medians or placed in locations where they are not consistent with the TCC; signs placed in line of sight areas; proliferation of signs during political season — not located per the TCC either; a person's entities conducting businesses in Tustin are required to have business licenses; 26 communities in Orange County do not allow signs at all in the public ROW; and a license is required for a home occupation. Lumbard Lumbard referred to signs that may be commercial speech/non- commercial speech (i.e. garage sales) but not knowing if it is for profit or non-profit; there are some questions on enforcement. He mentioned two (2) different standards and differentiating between the two. Lumbard was also concerned with the quantity of signs and asked if staff would consider limiting the number of signs. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 2 of 11 Mason Mason had another point of clarification regarding commercial signs and limiting the number and she asked if the Commission needed to discuss penalties. She also asked if staff was going to educate the Commission on penalties on people who do not follow the codes that the City currently has in place. Binsack Binsack's response to Mason's questions generally included: recommendations could be made; there are provisions in the TCC currently as well as Administrative Citation procedures; depending on how the City proceeds there might be some benefit in the cost for removal of too many signs placed, signs illegally placed as well as the temporary storage for illegal signs; staff could make recommendations to the Commission and City Council; the City could limit commercial signs to (i.e. ten (10) per city, similar to the City of Costa Mesa's ordinance) but this would be difficult to ascertain unless each sign were numbered; limiting the number of signs to ten (10) or twenty (20) could be reasonable; and for other types of signs there might be a limitation to the number of signs per intersection. Kozak Kozak asked about business licenses and penalties and if staff would be recommending permits in the future. Binsack Binsack's response to Kozak's question on permits generally included: permits have not been particularly popular for temporary banners/signs; not viewed as being business friendly, but the City could consider this approach; and the City used to have a ninety-five dollar ($95) permit fee for individuals placing banners; the City, at one time, decided to modify the fee by waiving the fee if the banners were flown legally, and if not, individuals would be fined. Mason Mason referenced the agenda report with regards to the non-commercial signs being posted for 45 days and if staff would recommend extending beyond the 45 days. Binsack Binsack stated that since the non-commercial signs are similar to political signs, non-profit entities would also fit within the same category. Staff would need to do further research and provide further recommendations to the Commission as well. 6:36pm Public Comments opened. Mr. Robert Machado, President of the Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts and Board Member of the Tustin Public Schools Foundation, is involved with signs in the community (Broadway in the Park and Dino Dash). He asked if the sign size presented was still within the TCC or if it was something new and if it is the maximum size. Mr. Machado referred to the banners at Peppertree Park and the Sports Park and asked if banners would be addressed. He was in favor of the non-profit event signs being posted for 45 days to properly notify the public of upcoming events. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 3 of 11 Reekstin In response to Mr. Machado's question, Reekstin stated that the City is proposing to keep the maximum size either the same or very close to what is in the City's Sign Code, which is four(4) square feet. Lumbard Lumbard stated he understood the proposed ordinance would also apply to banners. Binsack In response to Mr. Machado's question regarding banners, Binsack stated banners on private properties are not proposed to be addressed with the proposed ordinance. She said there would be a future proposed ordinance in the coming months and any onsite banners would not be addressed via this proposed ordinance. Lumbard Lumbard's comments/concerns generally included: requested clarification on the distinction between banners onsite and private properties would not be included in the proposed ordinance; concern with enforceability; could place as many complex rules and restrictions as the City wants to, individuals will place signs no matter what the rules state; date placement markings on the back of signs; distance requirements for intersections; advised the Commission about being too complex with the regulations for individuals to follow; signs which do not identify the source and how the City would enforcement payment and it could be a burden on staff; and Lumbard would like to see something in the "middle ground" which was addressed at the City Council/Planning Commission workshop in March. Mason Mason referred to the freedom of speech signs, which do not always display the source and asked if this would be something to add to the middle ground. She suggested the Commission consider not placing the restrictions or burdens, but making the rules and regulations clear. Lumbard Lumbard asked the Commission if they wanted to restrict freedom of speech and if they should require the source to identify themselves on their signs. It is currently a requirement for political signs. Kendig In response to Lumbard's statement, Kendig stated that it would be an allowable requirement that the source be marked on some portion of the signs, whether the front or back. He did not believe it would infringe on freedom of speech by identifying the source on the sign. Thompson Thompson's considerations for staff generally included: enforceability; signs as presently allowed in a single-family dwelling, the person has to be in agreement with that sign; is there a model community where sign regulations are working well (i.e. another city?) for staff to learn from those examples; possibly look at a minimum size sign in order to help the tattering of certain signs; and government signs being placed and that the rules fit all signs (i.e. banner above Main Street entering Old Town). Lumbard Lumbard requested clarification on government speech signs and if they fall under First Amendment issues. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 4 of 11 Kendig Kendig stated that the government may exempt itself from these sign regulations and that banner signs the city posts would be a permissible approach. Mason Per Thompson's comment on signs in front of a residence, Mason asked if a resident could place a home based business sign on their property and if there are limitations. Thompson In response to Mason's question, Thompson stated he was referring to signs in the public ROW, but they are in front of a residence. Binsack Binsack's explanation generally included: home-based business signs cannot be located in the public ROW adjacent to a single-family residence or anywhere else in the ROW; home-based business signs are currently prohibited; what staff is proposing, home based business signs would likely be allowed adjacent to a single-family residence and commercial property as long as it is in the public ROW; if a resident lives on a public street, and a parkway is adjacent to the residence, the resident is required to maintain the area; and somebody could place a sign on that area and the resident might not necessarily agree with that sign, but the resident is still required to maintain that area. Kendig Per Kendig, the City would place itself in potential peril if the City gave the property owner the right to veto the viewpoint of a particular sign if it was in the public ROW. He also stated that the property owner rightfully has the ability to control what signs appear on his or her property, but when the signs are in the public ROW, affording that property owner the same right to control the message would likely conflict with Supreme Court's decision. Thompson Thompson questioned Kendig's previous statement with regards to the property owner having to maintain the public ROW but cannot maintain the sign or they have to maintain the sign regardless. He also asked if the current regulation regarding single-family homes states just that. Kendig Kendig's response to Thompson's question generally included: the property owner has to maintain around the signs located in the public ROW; currently, commercial signs are not allowed in the public ROW, including the home-based business; no conflict with commercial signs; and asked Binsack to what extent the City allows non-commercial speech in front of private residences. Binsack In response to Kendig's question, Binsack stated the City allows non- commercial speech and political signs adjacent to single-family residences and the City currently requires property owners allow for concurrence, but that conflicts with the Reed vs. Gilbert decision. Kendig Kendig further explained that a City imposed restriction requiring property owner allowance would be based on the content of the sign. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 5 of 11 Lumbard Lumbard asked staff to clarify page 11 of the agenda report (slide 22 of the PowerPoint presentation) since it lists under the options for non- commercial signs (Item #8) owner approval required if signs are posted directly adjacent to the street frontage of a single-family residence. He reiterated having a situation with an individual who has been regulating speech on behalf of the government would not work. Kendig Kendig stated that Item #8 should be removed. Kozak Kozak's comments on enforceability included: currently the City has a restriction with respect to signs within an intersection; he presented a sign he picked up from an intersection on Irvine Boulevard earlier that day in order to make a point about enforcement and flexibility that is needed; time place and manner in both commercial and non-commercial signs, setting a distance requirement for the placement of the signs; and asked for consideration, that signs not be placed in the medians of the parkways for public safety reasons (person running across the street to place sign). Binsack Binsack reiterated to the Commission and to the public watching at home — signs, unless the City has placed them there, are not allowed in the medians. Lumbard Lumbard again mentioned enforceability and the need to have clear-cut rules that are easily understood. Smith Smith's questions/comments generally included: entities supported by government funding and if the entity is a non-profit supported by the City's general fund, the entity would have the ability to use the public ROW areas; is it possible for a city to allow access to public ROW areas to place signs but in order to place signs you must use an entity the City contracts with to manage the service, including all enforcement; a fee would then have to be applied if an entity wished to participate in such a service; and would there be a liability for enforcement if the City were inclined to enable such a service. Kendig Kendig's response to Smith's questions generally included: if the City were to place the sign, the City could enable such a service: did not believe the City would want to open up the public ROWs to all of those entities since signs would be difficult to police; if a non-profit entity, signs would be treated as government speech; signs would have to be tailored for events supported by the City; to create a wholesale exemption for the entity itself, whether or not the activity was supported by the City, would favor certain private speakers over others, which would in turn create a conflict; if it were a City event that happened to be cooperated in by a non-profit, the City could accommodate the sign by having the City place it or somehow validate the placement of those signs in a specific category; in response to Smith's suggestion on contract services, if it applies equally to all categories of speech there may not be a conflict; and Kendig will conduct further research on all categories of speech to confirm. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 6 of 11 Mason Mason asked staff to provide the operational definition of ROW areas when they come back with a recommendation to the Commission. Lumbard Lumbard asked if staff would consider a citizen or entity to pay a fee to the City to have their signs removed to assist with enforcement of the duration signs are up. He stated one problem being the placement of signs, and the second problem is removing signs. Thompson Another comment Thompson made was regulating which roads can receive the signs (i.e. reserved for certain segments of roadway). Potential of socio-economic burden on the placement of signs, which could indirectly regulate the signs as well as place a financial burden to non-profit organizations. Reekstin Reekstin stated real estate entities are looking specifically at the placement of open house signs on major arterials as well as residential neighborhoods. Kendig In addition to Reekstin's statement, Kendig stated that once the City allows one category of signs, the City is not allowed to prohibit others based on the content of the signs. Lumbard Lumbard addressed the Commission by stating it would be constructive and helpful if the Commission would follow Staff's recommendations (options) identified within the agenda report. Binsack Binsack asked the Commission not to focus only on non-profits and political signs, but to consider all the ranges of signs, including signs that may have potentially free speech content. She wanted to ensure the Commission consider the approval of all signs. Smith Smith asked to clarify the applicability of signs to homeowner's association properties and if they would be addressed at a future workshop. Kendig In response to Smith's question, Kendig informed the Commission they should only be considering signs in the public ROW. Lumbard Lumbard's comments generally included: he favors the standard sign size or maximum size as well as content neutral size restriction; he favors a maximum number of signs based on a given location (i.e. intersection or abutting parcel) in the public ROW and, within reason, the City should be able to limit the number of signs when it becomes a distraction; he is neutral on the distance requirement — placement restriction and determining the distance from an intersection; in favor of the time restriction for commercial signs (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and 45 days for non-commercial; he questions commercial signs that must be associated with the Tustin commercial enterprise and are not allowable for permanent signage, particularly when the sign is generic (i.e. determining where restaurant signs come from; placing garage sale signs in Tustin and the resident lives on the border of Irvine and Santa Ana); "when" can non- Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 7 of 11 commercial speech signs be placed (45 days or certain times a year); asked if the Commission wanted to limit the duration; and suggested getting feedback from the non-profit groups as to whether 45 days is appropriate for specific non-profit events. Mason Mason asked about managing the process (permitting). She asked how a person would tag a space and if garage sales would be considered non- commercial. As per the time restriction, Mason asked if the timeframes and number of days were based on various organizations input. She also asked if garage sale signs were considered non-commercial signs and asked the Commission if they would consider limiting the signs to an area of a person's business. Binsack Binsack asked the Commission if they would want staff to come back with a recommendation as to the maximum number of signs and the enforceability of signs. Smith Smith asked why staff came up with 300 feet instead of 50 or 100 feet with regards to the distance requirement. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Lumbard, Mason and Smith's questions on the distance requirement generally included: the numbers were based on the City's current TCC which was primarily based on directional signs which the City felt was an adequate number of feet from the intersection to view the sign and make a decision as to whether or not to turn; proposing slight increase to hours; with respect to time restriction, City staff is proposing a slight increase to the number of hours and some real estate businesses have provided information to other cities; distance requirement would be difficult for the City to enforce, unless it were a severe case; the item City staff is proposing is something that the City of Irvine has also added to their ordinance which would only be City of Irvine businesses that are not eligible to have a permanent sign in the City of Irvine; staff thought it was a good way to control the number of signs in the community; garage sale signs are a type of commercial sign; and the City would suggest requiring identification be provided on the back of signs and if no identification, then it is in violation of the TCC and the sign could be removed. Binsack Binsack provided further information on the distance requirement question and stated when the City established the distance requirement standards; the City was having a significant issue with real estate signs, particularly on Tustin Ranch Road, Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree Road. She also stated that when the signs were scaled back within limited reaches, it reduced the overall number of signs and reduced the clutter. Binsack cautioned the Commission if there is no limitation on the businesses that are licensed in Tustin displaying signs, there are other businesses in adjacent communities that have enterprises that the Commission may not find desirable (i.e. cultivating, night life events) then the City of Tustin could become an advertising ground for another jurisdiction. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 8 of 11 Thompson Thompson commented on the time restriction of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., adding that the City does not have office hours, which means someone would have to be assigned or staff would be allowing citizens to pull signs, which may be the intent. He also followed up to Lumbard's question on the commercial signs by stating the Commission needs to be careful if it is a Santa Ana business, advertising in the City of Tustin, it would fit this regulation. Kendig Per Kendig, garage sales could be considered commercial speech as well as real estate. Kozak Kozak suggested defining a commercial enterprise as a business licensed with the City. Binsack In response to Kozak's suggestion on commercial enterprises, Binsack stated that City staff could look further at the definition. Lumbard Lumbard suggested business licenses be required under the business and professions section of the TCC. He added that there is nothing comparable to the non-commercial signs as to where they are registered. Lumbard asked about the folding signs outside of food establishments. Smith Smith asked if the City requires a business license for garage sales and if after 45 days a sign is pulled, would a person be able to re-post after a certain period (i.e. 24 hours). Binsack Binsack stated business licenses are not required for garage sales. In response to the folding signs, Binsack stated City staff would address those types of signs with the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan. These types of signs are temporary, but more of a permanent nature. Mason Mason asked how the Old Town folding signs would be listed. Kendig Kendig stated that the folding signs would be regulated differently since they are larger than other signs. He also mentioned that the City is not allowed to regulate to a greater extent to a non-profit. Kendig to conduct further research to human signs in the public ROW. Thompson Thompson suggested staff ensure TCC are compatible with what is being introduced as regulation with temporary signs and what the Cultural Resources District has in place. Kozak With respect to non-commercial signs and the number of days in place, Kozak suggested a clarification in terms of an event versus a general sign for a non-profit not related to a specific date and time event. Kozak asked if there could be a certain place and time for real estate open house signs. Kendig Kendig's responses/comments generally included: the concern with having to read the sign to know which standard to apply; provided a word of caution to the Commission in that the City is not allowed to regulate, to Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 9 of 11 a greater extent, non-profit over commercial signs; if the City allows commercial speech somewhere, then the City would have to allow non- commercial speech in the same area; if the City wants to prohibit a certain area from having non-profit or non-commercial speech, the City would also need to prohibit commercial speech and a lot of this observation is driven by the fact that the realtors want access to a lot of residential areas; once permitted in the public ROW in residential areas, the City would need to allow non-commercial speech as well in the public ROW in residential areas; and the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. requirement would be a time restriction and is allowable for real estate open house signs. Further discussion among the Commission generally included: the non- commercial sign as related to non-profit organizations, political speech, or some other form of not for profit speech; the posting date on the back of signs in terms of enforcement; if there is no date and no identifying name, the sign is pulled; may be a useful tool for City staff to see who is complying with the rules and who is not; legally what the requirements are (i.e. telephone #, email, name); the Commission is in favor of some sort of identifier; the limited number of days signs can be posted and which times of the year, the Commission collectively asked staff to provide additional options at a later date and to see what other cities are doing; whether or not human signs would be addressed at a future date and could they be banned; what costs the City currently incurs on either enforcement or cleanup of signs; when defining a public ROW, in terms of safety, ensuring that sidewalks are not being cluttered and that there are posting specifications, as well as the operational definition and the ADA aspect; and limitations that the government can place restrictions on hate speech. Binsack Binsack's comments generally included: currently the City's Ordinance requires name, telephone number, address; if required information is not on the sign, whoever the sign benefits, that is the person held responsible for the sign; if the sign does not benefit anyone in particular, then the sign has no value and can be removed; human signs cannot be banned and will be addressed at a future date; if the City is going to allow commercial signs in the public ROW, then the City needs to allow human commercial signs in the public ROW as well; the City has already looked at time, place and manner, with regards to human signs, and ensured they were not standing too close to the intersection, they were not moving and that they were just standing at the location holding the sign; lately, the City has not been enforcing the sign ordinance, which is why there has been more sign blight; and staff can identify what costs the City incurred, for general sign removal, in the past; when the ordinance is brought forward to the Commission, for both commercial and non-commercial signs and once the City Council adopts the ordinance, businesses will make a capital investment on whatever signs the City adopts; and while the City has the capability of modifying laws and its ordinance within six (6) months of the ordinance being adopted, if necessary, businesses already made their investments relying on the adopted ordinance. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 10 of 11 Kendig Kendig's final comments generally included: he will do further research on human signs, which seems to be a physical constraint; as per the comment on hate speech, part of it is based on community standards and in California, the community standards are so relaxed it is almost impossible to define anything as violating that standard; it would be prudent to assume that very offensive speech would be allowed under a rule that permits non-commercial speech; the government has less ability to control the content of speech than social media (i.e. Facebook) and what the City is establishing is a public forum and would be free of most constraints aside from physical constraints; another example, courtrooms are public buildings but a person is not allowed to protest inside a courtroom and the Supreme Court identifies such as non-public forums and are established for a very specific purpose and restricting speech in that particular context is recognized as necessary in order for that forum to exist; and public forums (i.e. parks and beaches) the Supreme Court states we are not allowed to regulate them on the basis of the content of the speech. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Nothing to report. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason None. Kozak Kozak thanked staff and counsel for this evening's discussion and he looks forward to working with staff on all that was reported at the meeting. Kozak attended a street dedication as a tribute to Private First Class, Carlos Ray Davis (Davis Drive in Tustin Ranch) on March 22, 2017. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: 3/21: OCTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee 5/6: 21St Home and Garden Tour Smith No concerns. Lumbard Lumbard had no concerns. He asked that the meeting be closed in honor of Luke Gorkey 8:43pm ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 11, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Clifton C. Miller Community Center at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes—Planning Commission March 28, 2017—Page 11 of 11