HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 1396 (2011)ORDINANCE NO. 1396
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY
MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
OPERATION OF TATOO ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE
CITY OF TUSTIN FOR A PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS AND
FIFTEEN DAYS PENDING A STUDY OF LAND USE
REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858. (4/5ths Vote Required)
City Attorney Summary
This interim urgency ordinance extends a Temporary moratorium on the establishment
or operation of tattoo establishments in the City of Tustin pending completion of a study
by the City to determine the appropriate land use regulations, development standards,
and operational regulations necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or safety
from impacts associated with or implicated by use of properly for tattoo establishments.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This interim urgency ordinance is adopted pursuant to Section 65858 of
the California Government Code.
SECTION 2. Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1392 relating to the establishment or
operation of tattoo establishments is hereby extended for an additional
period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this urgency
ordinance is necessary because:
A. Tattoo establishments are not listed as permitted uses in the Tustin
Zoning Code, and the Tustin City Code contains no specific provisions
regulating the location, development, or operational characteristics of
establishments where tattoos are placed on individuals.
B. In a recent case, Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Hermosa Beach's total prohibition
on the establishment and operation of tattoo parlors within the city was
unconstitutional, and that cities may only impose reasonable "time, place,
and manner" regulations on such activities. The Ninth Circuit held, as a
matter of first impression, that a tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and
the business of tattooing are pure forms of expression fully protected by
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that the City of
Hermosa Beach's total ban on tattoo parlors was not a reasonable "time,
Ordinance No. 1396
Page 1 of 4
place, or manner' restriction. The Ninth Circuit's decision calls into
question the effectiveness of the Tustin City Code in regulating the act
and/or business of tattooing and addressing land uses related to tattooing.
C. Tattooing is an activity that, if undertaken in unsanitary conditions, can
lead to the transmission of infectious diseases, including hepatitis,
syphilis, tuberculosis, and HIV. In addition, other California cities that have
permitted the establishment of tattoo establishments have recognized that
doing so has resulted in secondary negative impacts, such as an increase
in crime and the sale of illegal drugs immediately surrounding tattoo
establishments and the impairment of the market values and aesthetic and
visual qualities of the properties adjacent to tattoo establishments. Based
upon the experience of other cities, it is reasonable to conclude that
similar negative effects could occur in the City of Tustin as a result of the
establishment or operation of tattoo establishments.
D. The City has received inquiries regarding the permitting and establishment
of tattoo establishments within the City. The issuance or approval of any
business license, permit or other entitlement for the establishment or
operation of tattoo establishments is a threat to the public health, safety,
and welfare in that there currently are no specific standards or regulations
in the Tustin City Code that comprehensively address the potential
negative effects associated with the location and operation of such
facilities. Absent reasonable time, place, and manner regulations
governing tattoo establishments, such uses could be established in areas
of the City where they are inconsistent and/or incompatible with the
surrounding land uses and/or operated under unsanitary conditions,
thereby increasing the risk of transmission of infectious diseases.
E. The City intends to perform or cause to be performed a study regarding
appropriate land use regulations, development standards, and other
operational regulations necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of the community from impacts associated with or implicated by
use of property for the operation of tattoo establishments.
F. The establishment or operation of any tattoo establishments could be in
conflict with any regulations adopted in conjunction with such study and
could result in the negative impacts described above; therefore, it is
necessary to continue to prohibit the establishment and/or operation of
tattoo establishments in the City of Tustin until such time that the study
described above is completed and/or appropriate regulations to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare are enacted by the City.
G. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that there is a current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and that the
approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, business
Ordinance No. 1396
Page 2 of 4
licenses, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement authorizing
the use, establishment or operation of tattoo establishments would result
in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
SECTION 4. For purposes of this ordinance, "tattoo establishment" means any premise
or establishment and facilities incidental thereto which engages in the
business of marking or coloring skin which is the method of placing
designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols, or other marks upon or under
the skin with ink or any other substance resulting in the coloration of the
skin by the aid of needles or any other instrument designated to penetrate
the skin. A tattoo establishment shall not include a permanent cosmetic
facility, as defined in Section 4140.010 of the Tustin City Code.
SECTION 5. For the period of this ordinance, or any extension thereof, no person, firm,
corporation, or other entity shall establish or operate, and no subdivision,
use permit, variance, building permit, certificate of use or occupancy, or
other land use entitlement or license shall be issued for, a tattoo
establishment in any zoning district of the City, even if located in
conjunction with an otherwise permitted use.
SECTION 6. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c}(3)
(the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) (Title 14, of the
California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents
changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated
City study.
SECTION 7. Ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this interim urgency ordinance, or
an extension thereof, the City Council shall issue a written report
describing the measures which the City has taken to address the
conditions which led to the adoption of this ordinance.
SECTION 8. This interim urgency ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. This interim urgency
ordinance shall continue in effect for forty-five (45) days from the date of
its adoption and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect unless,
after notice pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and a
public hearing, the City Council extends this interim urgency ordinance for
an additional period of time pursuant to California Government Code
Section 65858.
SECTION 9. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason, held to be
Ordinance No. 1396
Page 3 of 4
unconstitutional or invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent
jurisdiction such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each
section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin held on the 1St day of March 2011.
ATTEST:
f'
,<
PA LA STOKER ~
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do 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 Ordinance No. 1396 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1St day of
March 2011, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Amante, Nielsen, Gavello, Gomez, Murray (5)
None `{0)'
None (0)
None (0)
Ordinance No. 1396
Page 4 of 4