HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 84-3 SIGNS 1985 6 �
ORDINANCE NO. 422
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT,
MUNICIPAL CODE.SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO- ZOA 84-3�:)
a
r
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
28th day of February, 1985 and on June 13, 1985 hold duly noticed public hearings to
consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 1029 and 1044 has
recommended approval;
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the project
to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts to justify its action as described below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, as follows:
I
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A", to amend Municipal
Code Section 25.68
3. The city clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert
Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City
of Palm Desert, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 27th day of June,' 1985, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: BENSON, JACKSON, WILSON do SNYDER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: KELLY
ABSTAIN: NONE
WALTER SNYDER, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, C Clerk
City of Palm Desert, Cal' ornia
/dlg
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 422
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125.68.620. Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as defined in
section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five (5) square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty (50) feet.
C. Such signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election
date, except that in the case of a general election, political signs shall not
be required to be removed between the primary and general elections, but
shall be removed within ten (10) days after the general election date. The
applicant shall agree in writing to be personally responsible for the removal
of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety (90) days prior to an
election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political signs.
Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant
shall secure the permission of the property owner."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on the second
floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent of the sign area
authorized for businesses conducted in single-story buildings by the architectural
commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §l (part), 1975: Exhibit A
§2 5.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted to the
architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new developments, a
signing program shall be submitted as part of the site plan review procedure. (Ord.
129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §I (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38- 16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this chapter shall
be subject to the approval of the architectural commission process. In approving or
rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing body shall utilize the following
review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of substantial
trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety
and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and other
signs in the area.
ORDINANCE NO. 422 Exhibit "A"
1 .
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual
elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing and
proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing where
the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure from
view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual characteristics of the
surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the
value of adjacent developed properties.
1. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to any
residential district does not adversely affect the value or character of the
adjacent residental district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part),
1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION 5: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as approved by
the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25 68.270 Sign Area - Commercial and Industrial Uses. Sign design, location and
size shall be as approved by the architectural commission. Relative thereto, the
following sign areas shall apply:
A. Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way
which they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage
to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural commission deter-
mines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design
of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way
from which its area is determined.
B. Commercial businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public
right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of 75 square feet
unless the architectural commission determines that the proposed size of
the sign is not in harmony with the design of the building. Such a sign
must be located adjacent to the right-of-way from which its area is
determined.
C. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in
excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or B of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet, and an
additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of
frontage in excess of a hundred feet, (Ord. 272 (part), 1981: Ord. 129 §4
(part), 1977: Ord. 98 §l (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38- 12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of environmental
services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a watt facia or
freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales. The director may
approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event, building
design and right-of-way frontage for a period not to exceed 30 days per year. When
improperly used, special event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which shall
specify the period during which the sign may be displayed."
1
Section 8: That Section 25.68.391 of the code of the City of Palm Desert be and the
same is added to read as follows:
25.68.391 Freestanding Sign Review Criteria
In reviewing freestanding signs as provided for in sections 25.68.310 and 25.68.390
the architectural commission shall specifically consider:
a. The height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
b. The distance from the sign to the street.
c. The color of the sign background and lettering thereon.
Section 9: That part "A" of Section 25.68.390 of the code of the City of Palm Desert
be and the same is amended to read as follows:
25.68.390 Signs in District and Regional Shopping Centers and Industrial Parks
In addition to the wall sign area allowed for individual businesses, shopping
centers and industrial parks in excess of three and one-half acres of land shall be
allowed one identification sign on each right-of-way. Such signs shall not extend
beyond the property line or into the right-of-way and shall be used solely to
identify the shopping center, shopping area, or industrial park. Relative to such
signs, the allowable sign area shall be based on ten square feet of sign per acre.
These signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet, shall have a maximum
height of twelve feet, and shall not be erected without first having property
approval as provided in this chapter.
Notwithstanding the limit of one sign on each right-of-way when a shopping center
or industrial park has street frontage on any one street in excess of 1600 feet
then an additional sign shall be permitted subject to the signs being separated by
a minimum distance of 400 feet.
In the case of centers in the regional commercial zone having over 700,000 square
feet of gross leasable retail floor area said center identification signs may
contain the name of tenants and/or activities conducted within the center which
operate during evening hours.
I
l
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER JUN 3 19a5
•.rV r ALL
c.r.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68 concerning regulation of
signs.
APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3
DATE: June 13, 1985
CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 422
D. Minutes of Planning Commission of May 14, 1985 and Resolution 1044
E. May 14, 1985 Staff Report
F. May 7, 1985 Staff Report
G. April 16, 1985 Staff Report
H. April 16, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
I. April 2, 1985 Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes
J. February 28, 1985 City Council Minutes
K. Information packet circldated with case for February 28, 1985 City Council
Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 422 to second reading.
B. BACKGROUND:
As you will recall the proposed amendment to the sign regulations was before
city council at its February 28, 1985 meeting. Planning Commission throughout
December, January and February had conducted public hearings and had adopted
its Resolution No. 1029 which recommended approval of amendments relating to
political signs, changing wording in certain sections from "design review board"
to "architectural commission", clarification of wording limiting sign size and
allowing special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days pursuant to
resolution of city council.
February 23, 1985 there was a joint planning commission/city council session.
February 28, 1985 city council referred the sign amendment case back to
planning commission to review matters discussed during the February 23, 1985
study session.
April 2 and 16 and May 7 and 14 planning commission held public hearings and
discussed the following matters:
1. Internally illuminated signs.
2. The criteria under which freestanding signs are reviewed by architectural
commission.
3. The appropriateness of limiting freestanding signs to one per street frontage
in the regional commercial zone.
C. DISCUSSION:
Resolution No. 1029 of the planning commission included 7 sections. The
amendments to the political sign regulations, section 1 of proposed ordinance,
can be described as follows:
I. The sections requiring a $100 bond be deposited to guarantee removal of
signs within 10 days and requiring the city to set up a separate account will
be deleted and replaced with a section requiring removal within 10 days and
written statement from the candidate agreeing to do so.
ZOA 84-3
2. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet will remain as is.
3. The section prohibiting signs closer than 500 feet together will be changed to
50 feet.
4. The section prohibiting political signs in residential areas will be deleted.
5. The section prohibiting signs in the public right-of-way will be retained and
expanded to require that the applicant secure the permission of the property
owner prior to erecting the sign.
6. The section requiring the candidate to file a location map of where signs are
to be erected will be deleted.
7. The section prohibiting political signs on vehicles will be deleted.
Revisions contained in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the proposed ordinance involve
changing the wording in certain sections from "design review board" to
"architectural commission".
Revisions contained in Section 6 tighten the language controlling maximum sign
size by specifying "commercial" businesses and adding the words "to a maximum
of feet" in subsections A, B and C of Section 25.68.270.
Section 7 of the proposed amendment relates to special event signs and permits
special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days but only pursuant to a
resolution of the city council.
Section 8 of the proposed ordinance would establish specific criteria for the
review of all freestanding signs as follows:
1. height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
2. distance of sign from street.
3. color of sign background and letters thereon.
Section 9 of the proposed ordinance provided the most discussion.
Representatives of the Palm Desert Town Center appeared and requested that
the town center be permitted an additional freestanding sign on the Highway
111 frontage on which it could list the businesses which are open in the evenings.
Planning commission agreed that the town center was a unique situation and
granted it an additional freestanding sign subject to specific criteria. Planning
commission also recognized and concurred with the policy of the architectural
commission that freestanding signs should be used to identify only a single
business or a center but not a series of businesses. For this reason the planning
commission recommends in section 9 the deletion of the words "or businesses
and/or activities conducted therein" from the sentence which read "Such signs
shall not extend beyond the property line or onto the right-of-way and shall be
used solely to identify the shopping center, shopping area or businesses and/or
activities conducted therein".
Resolution 1029, adopted February 5, 1985, passed on a 4-0-1 vote with
Commissioner Downs absent. Resolution 1044 adopted May 14, 1985 passed on
a 2-1-1 vote with Chairman Crites voting nay, Commissioner Richards abstaining
and Commissioner Downs absent. Chairman Crites indicated that his no vote on
the resolution reflected his strong feeling that the town center , considering its
high level of success, should not receive any additional signage.
Approval of Ordinance 422 as proposed would enact all the recommendations
contained in planning commission resolution no's. 1029 and 1044.
Prepared by
Reviewed and Approved by
/dig
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT,
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
28th day of February, 1985 and on June 13, 1985 hold duly noticed public hearings to
consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 1029 and 1044 has
recommended approval;
WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the project
to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the
following facts to justify its action as described below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health,
safety and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
considerations of the council in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, as
provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A", to amend Municipal
Code Section 25.68
3. The city clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert
Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City
of Palm Desert, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this _ day of , 1985, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WALTER SNYDER, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
/dlg
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION I: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125 68 620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as defined in
section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five (5) square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty (50) feet.
C. Such signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
j�c 5
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election
date, except that in the case of a general election, political signs shall not
be required to be removed between the primary and general elections, but
shall be removed within ten (10) days after the general election date. The
applicant shall agree in writing to be personally responsible for the removal
of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety (90) days prior to an
election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political signs.
Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant
shall secure the permission of the property owner."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, y2t�
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on the second
floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent of the sign area
authorized for businesses conducted in single-story buildings by the architectural
commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A
§25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be a
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted to the
architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new developments, a
signing program shall be submitted as part of the site plan review procedure. (Ord.
129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38- 16.01).
rJ
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be E(`
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25 68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this chapter shall
be subject to the approval of the architectural commission process. In approving or
rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing body shall utilize the following
review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of substantial
trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety
and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and other
signs in the area.
A
F. That both the location of the proposed sign andt e design
oohs visual
elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, motifs,
where
g and
proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing
the sign is to be installed.
G- That til location a from designgn O tile
or proposadjaced
sign
i gns.does not obscure from
view
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual characteristics of the
surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the
value of adjacent developed properties.
1. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to any
residential district does not adversely affect the value or character of the
adjacent residental district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part),
1975; Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION 5: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25 68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as approved by tir
the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: f t}
25.68.270 Sign Area - Commercial and Industrial Uses. Sign design, location and
size shall be as approved by the architectural commission. Relative thereto, the
following sign areas shall apply:
A. Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way
which they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one squaUnleootthe ar of ghittectun per ' commissionalal dete foot of r-
to feet
to a max
imum of 50 square
mines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the
of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way
from which its area is determined.
B. Commercial businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public
right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of 75 square feet
unless the architectural commission determines that the proposed size of
the gnharmony
he
gn
musts, be 'locatedn adjacent to the right-of-way design rightof-ways fromu'lwhi h Its ha area is
determined.
C. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in
excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or B of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of l one
in
eess of fifty squarre foot ofesignp to one area for eachd feet, and an
lineal foot of
additional one q q
frontage in excess of a hundred feet, (Ord. 272 (part), 1981: Ord. 129 §4
(part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38- 12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, be N�f
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68 350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of environmental
services, a business mgy e one temporary sign,promotions mounted on a wall )a or
may
freestanding, advertising special
ecial events, p or sales.. The director
approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event, building
design and right-of-way frontage for a period not to exceed 30 days per year. When
improperly used, special event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which shall
specify the period during which the sign may be displayed."
Y
Section 8: That Section 25.68.391 of the code of the City of Palm Desert be and the
same is added to read as follows:
25.68.391 Freestanding Sign Review Criteria
. In reviewing freestanding signs as provided for in sections 25.68.310 and
25.68.390 the architectural commission shall specifically consider:
a. The height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
b. The distance from the sign to the street.
c. The color of the sign background and lettering thereon.
Section 9: That part "A" of Section 25.68.390 of the code of the City of Palm Desert
be and the same is amended to read as follows:
25.68.390 Signs in District and Regional Shopping Centers and Industrial Parks
In addition to the wall sign area allowed for individual businesses, shopping
centers and industrial parks in excess of three and one-half acres of land shall be
allowed one identification sign on each right-of-way. Such signs shall not extend
beyond the property line or into the right-of-way and shall be used solely to
identify the shopping center, shopping area, or industrial park. Relative to such
signs, the allowable sign area shall be based on ten square feet of sign per acre.
These signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet, shall have a maximum
heightiof twelve feet, and shall not be erected without first having proper
approval as provided in this chapter.
Notwithstanding the limit of one sign on each right-of-way when a shopping
center or industrial park has street frontage on any one street in excess of 1600
feet then a additional sign shall be permitted subject to the signs being
separated by a minimum distance of 400 feet.
t ,
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 5, 1985 continued from December 18, 1984 and
January 15, 1985.
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68, concerning
regulation of signs.
I. BACKGROUND:
This proposed amendment to the sign ordinance was before the planning
commission at its December 18, 1984 meeting when commission requested
clarification by the city attorney of certain items relating to political
signs. The city attorney's memo dated January 10, 1985 was reviewed by
commission at its January 15, 1985 meeting. At the meeting of January
15, 1985 commission arrived at a concensus and directed the city attorney
to prepare the appropriate language for the code amendment.
In addition commission directed that in the amendment to section 68.270
the word "commercial" should be inserted prior to the word "business" in
each subsection.
Finally, at the public hearing of January 15, 1985 a gentleman spoke and
requested that commission review the matter of off site directional signs
for housing developments. Commission indicated that this item would be
discussed further at the February 5, 1985 hearing.
II. ANALYSIS:
The necessary changes have been incorporated and are included in the draft
resolution attached. Should commission decide to further amend the sign
ordinance based on information submitted at the Fubruary 5, 1985 hearing
then the matter may have to be referred back to staff for preparation.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No. � st-
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert recommending approval to the City Council
of certain amendments 'o the municipal code (section 25.68 -Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution. (as revised)
2. Legal Notice
3. CiLy Attorney's report cf January 10, 1985.
4. City Attorney's report Of :•anuary 22; 1985.
5. Divector of Coda Compi?ance memo dated January 16, 1985.
Prepared by " vL
Approved by
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Calif-
ornia, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing
which was continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a
regular public hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section
25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City
of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city
council approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this _ day of , 1984, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
Fe and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125 68 620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as defined
in section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five (5) square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty (50) feet.
C. Such signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election
date, except that in the case of a general election, political signs shall
not be required to be removed between the primary and general elections,
but shall be removed within ten (10) days after the general election date.
The applicant shall agree in writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety (90) days prior to
an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political signs.
Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant
shall secure the permission of the property owner."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on the
second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent of
the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story buildings by
the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part),
1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new devel-
opments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site plan review
procedure. (Ord. 129 54 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this chapter
shall be subject to the approval of the architectural commission process. In
approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing body shall utilize
the following review criteria: .
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of substantial
trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety
and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
ears a harmonious relationship with and b P to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and other
signs in the area.
,
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual
elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing
and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing
where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual characteristics
of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause deprecia-
tion of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION 5: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as approved
by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sign Area -- Commercial and Industrial Uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission. Relative thereto,
the following sign areas shall apply:
A. Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way
which they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of front-
age to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural commission
determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with
the design of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to
the right-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Commercial businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a
public right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one
half square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design of the
building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way
from which its area is determined.
C. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way
in excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or
B of this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet, (Ord. 272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: O:d. 98 §I (part), 1975: Exhibit A §1-5.38-12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palrr. Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of environ-
mental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall
facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales. The
director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the
type of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a period not to
exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special event signs constitute
a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be
permitted pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such
approval which shall specify the period during which the sign may
be displayed."
73-510 FRED WARINO DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
December 21, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
Proposed Amendments to Sign Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a meeting, open to the public, will be held by the
committee of the whole of the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider certain
amendments to the sign ordinance (including revisions as they relate to political signs).
- 1 at 12:00 noon. a: the Palm
on Tuesday, January .5, 1985,
' m etin will be held Y
SAID public e g
Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Fah Desert,
California, at which time and place ali interested persons are invited to Otte nd and be
heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 28, 1984, and
January 49 1984
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
It I1, I .PaLM $
A PROFESSIONAL LAWCORP0�7AT1 PRINGS;OPIICE
""" ♦♦♦ 6 t� .
OAVIO J.ERWIN 74-090 EL PASEO „�� �.:7°860-9A ST uwou rtl-M[U uyM WA'
J.JOHN ANOERHOLT POST OFFICE 60X 769 SUITE 202
JEFFERT S.R.PATTERSOM P♦LM F(gItIL S.CALIPOPNIA 92262
MICHAEL J.ANOELSON 92281 I f�w 14 �-,-•.♦
000GLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA J f !
c PEGOPV A.SwAJIAM TELE PHONE 560.2611 TELEPHONE//(619)]22-2466
CHARLES M.ELLIs GA'l[II�O�I�G'11�+�R@{C[IW]l;' N.0 PA
LAN N L. E.ELOREO H11TRATOR
JOMN L.SUPPL[ CTI �F ?AL41 DTcTcu
CAL MSINTOSH
BAPBARA E-NRISTAL
w ILLIAM M.HAMLIN•
.Y{X![P[MRSN COW M{M•HAN.TOIN/.NO
GNAOJX 1AII.MOT/.OMIRCO IX C.W R111nM.
MEMO
TO: PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: January 10, 1985
RE: CITY SIGN ORDINANCE
on December 18, 1984, the Planning Commission requested
the City Attorney' s opinion with respect to the following:
1 . Legality of the City' s sign ordinance;
Z . The source of the City' s power to regulate signs;
3 . The purpose for the recommended changes in the
City' s sign ordinance, especially with regard to
political signs.
RESPONSE
Source of Palm Desert' s Power to Regina
to Signs.
Government Code section 65850(b) .provides that the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert may by ordinance regulate
signs and billboards. In addition the City' s police power
,
to protect the public health, safety and welfare hasgulation beeIn
used as a basis to uphold the City' s sign re
des that the
addition, Government Code section 38774 pr
legislative body may regulate the exhibition posting or
carrying of banners, placards, posters, cards, pictures,
signs or advertisements in or on the street or on or upon
buildings, fences, billboards or other structures; or
court,
upon any pole, in any sidewalk, alley, street ursuant to
park or other public place. In addition, p
Government Code section 38774(b) , the City may regulate the
suspension of banners, flags, signs, advertisements,
posters, pictures or cards across r over
ve rherpany sidewalk,
alley, street lane, court, p
Memo to: PDPC
From: D.S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 2
such suspension from £ences, ' poles, houses or other
structures.
Limitations on the city' s Ability to Regulate Signs and
Outdoor Advertising.
As a general rule, the First Amendment of the United
States and California Constitutions places a greater
limitation on the City' s ability to regulate non-commercial
signs as opposed to commercial signs. Reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions on signs, whether commercial
or non-commercial, have been permitted so long as the signs
do not control the content of non-commercial sign messages.
In a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Metro
Media vs. City of San Diego, the Court agreed, in effect, to
the following propositions:
1 . A desire to promote environmental asthetics is a
sufficient basis or use of the police power to control
signs;
2. If a municipality determines that a sign control
ordinance promotes traffic safety, it is not required to
offer proof of that fact in court;
3 . It is lawful to make a distinction between
on-premise and off-premise signs in an ordinance;
4. A sign control ordinance is not void simply
because it may put sign companies out of business;
5 . An ordinance is not unlawfully discriminatory
merely because it permits non-commercial and forbids
commercial messages on signs; and
6. An ordinance is not unlawfully overbroad simply
because it bans all off-premise commercial messages.
Recent cases also provide that it is proper for a city
to ban political signs on public rights-of-way. In
addition, it has recently been held that it is improper for
a city to require a permit fee to be paid prior to the
placement of a political sign.
Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Palm Desert Sign
Code.
Amendment to political- sign regulations.
The political sign regulations in the Palm Desert
Municipal Code were originally enacted in 1975 and again in
rhy
Memo to: PDPC .
From: D. S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 3
1977 . The proposed amendments would eliminate the
requirement that the applicant for a political sign post a
$100 cash bond with the City to guarantee removal of
political signs. This section is deleted 'because of the
limitation referred to above that the implement of a fee is
improper with respect to political signs. The original
ordinance provided that each political sign should not
exceed five square feet in area. This is retained in the .
new ordinance. The original ordinance provided that the
signs not be located closer together than 500 feet. The new
regulation would provide that the signs not be located
closer together than 50 feet. The old ordinance provided
that no political signs be allowed in any residential zone.
This is deleted in the new regulations. The old ordinance
provided that political signs not be nailed to trees, fence
posts, or fixed public utility poles and not be located in
the public right-of-way. This is retained in the new
regulations. The old ordinance provided that political
signs be removed ten ( 10) days after the election date or
the bond posted be forfeited. Further, it provided that
political signs not be posted earlier that 45 days prior to
the election. The new regulations provide that the
political signs be removed within 10 days after the election
and not be posted earlier than 45 days prior to the
election. The bond forfeiture provisions are removed and
the new regulations provide that the applicant be personally
responsible for the removal of the political signs. Both
the old and the new regulations provided that no fee or
permit was required for the right to erect political signs
but that a map or sketch showing the location of the signs
be filed with the Director of Environmental Services. Both
the old and the new regulations provide that no signs be
permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or any other
movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent. stickers not exceeding five (5) inches by 20
inches in size.
The purpose of the amendments to the political sign
sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is to omit the
bond requirements which were found to be unconstitutional in
recent court rulings. The balance of . the changes appear to
be reasonable time, place and manner limitations.
Amendments to Commercial and Industrial Uses/Sign
Areas.
The changes to the commercial and industrial uses
appear simply to be changes in time, place and manner
limitations on commercial signs which are clearly permitted
under case law. It is proposed that it be made clear that
Memo to: PDPC
From: D.S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 4
25. 68 .270 a, b, and c, specifically refer to commercial as
opposed to .non-commercial signs.
Special Event Signs.
Finally, with regard to special event signs, the
proposed changes appear to be reasonable time, place and
manner limitations and in fact grant additional latitude for
the placement of special event signs.
It does not appear at the present time that there are .
any sections of the City' s present sign ordinance which are
unconstitutional.
DSP/cr
h
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
DAVID J.ERWIN PALM SPRINGS OFFICE
J.JOHN ANOERHOLT 74-090 EL PASEO 960 EAST TAMOVIT2-M<CALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE BOX 789
MICHAEL J.ANOELSON SUITE 207
DOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92261 PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA 9226E
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE(619)568-2611
CHARLES M.ELLIS TELEPHONEf(619)322.2460
LANTSON E.ELDRED {�1\^'[��_N,�pyT I I LEI
JONN INTOSHE �']'� ILL` A, 1-))I
CAL ARATE.K IWNT L�
BARBAM E. AMLIN A
BRIANWILLI M CAINEK.HANLIN•
S RIAN F.0 JAN 2 9 1985
*"INS""MARIA E@AIL N T ADMITTED IN
AND
CANADMM EAN.NOT AOYIiT[O IM CALIFORNIA.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMO CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: RAY DIAZ, CITY OF PALM DESERT
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: Januray 22, 1985
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE PALM DESERT POLITICAL SIGN
REGULATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
STUDY SESSION, JANUARY 15, 1985.
OUR FILE NO. 1040-0011.
As recommended by the Planning Commission on January
15, 1985, at study session, the Palm Desert Planning
Commission recommends that Palm Desert Municipal Code
section 25 . 68. 620, political sign regulations, be deleted
and replaced with the following:
"25 . 68. 620. Political Sign Sign Relations.
Applicants for political signs, as defined in
section 25.68.020, shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Each sign cheli aot excaed five (5y
square facet in area.
(b) The signs shall not be located closer
together thatn fifty (50) feet.
(c) Such signs shall not be located in the
public right-of-way.
(d) All political signs shall be removed
within ten (10) days after the election date,
except that in the case of a general
election, political signs shall not be
required to be removed between the primary
and general elections, but shall be removed
within ten ( 10) days after the general
election date. The applicant shall agree in
writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
(e) No political signs shall be posted
earlier than ninety (90) days prior to an
election.
( f) No fee or permit shall be required for
the right to erect political signs. Where
the sign is proposed to be placed on private
property, the applicant shall secure the
permission of the property owner. "
DSP/cr
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: RAY DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND PLANNING
COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: FRANK ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES DATE: JANUARY 16, 1985
DISCUSSION:
At the last Planning Commission Meeting a developer complained about
notThi being
ticular
allowed to use off-site directional signs for subdivision projects.
developer had been cited in the past and had aiiviced the City Attorney he would
comply. The developer resumed placing the illegal off-site directional signs and
was ordered into court. '. :
Section 25.68.590 of the codes for special purpose signs for land divisions allows
two on-site directional signs in addition to the signs advertising the land division
project. The section does not allow
for off-site directional signs.
i think
they are confuse
d with Section 25.68.150 allowing off-site directional signs
on private property for open house when real estate in single-family zones is
offered for sale by the homeowner or broker.
Section 25.68.090 signs on utility poles and in the public right-of-way are Pro-
hibited.
Over the last few years developers have hired the services of sign agents to erect
illegal off-site directional signs along the public right-of-way or placing portable
signs on trailer carriages at key intersections. The signs are usually erected on
Friday afternoons or replaced late Saturday after abatement by the Zoning & License
Officer. If they are allowed to remain, they detract from the aesthetics of the
community and can be a hazard to traffic in some cases. The local realtors have
complained about these off-site directional signs.
PROBLEM:
The Code Compliance Department provides code compliance six days a week by alter-
nating a man on a Tuesday through Saturday work week. The primary purpose is to
do field surveillance on Saturday for illegal home occupations in residential
districts, door-to-door solicitation and unlicensed persons operating without a
business license or permit. It is impossible to do so, when much of the time is
given to abatement of illegal signs and confrontation with sales agents.
a:
is
' + PAGE 2
' TO: RAY DIAZ
FROM: FRANK ALLEN
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES
DATE: . JANUARY 16, 1985
.- The abatement of off-site directional signs cost the City -.in at least three '
ways: „s
1. Time of Zoning S License Officer to abate signs and attend City
Attorney's in-office hearing or be present for a court trail.
2. Cost for the services of the City Attorney which are in addition
to his contract of services agreement.
3. Business license tax revenue not collected from unlicensed
operators working Saturday. .
OPTIONS
There are three options the Planning Commission may consider:
Option 1: Leave the ordinance as it is and the City Zoning S License
Officer continues to abate.
Option 2: Amend.:-Section 25.68.590 to allow off-site directional signs on
private property with permisal6n of the property owner, between
the period of Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. A cash bond
might be considered to insure removal of the signs after the
time has expired Sunday evening and not picked up prior to 8:00
a.m. Monday. This option may .not be received favorably by the
local realtors or other sectors of the business community.
Option 3: 'a) The Cities of Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage allow_ model
tourssigns for land subdivision. ' These signs are made, in- .
- stalled and maintained by William Paul Advertising Agency,
located in Santa Ana, California. The cities will allow ,
the signs to be erected in public right-of-ways. The devel-',
the sign company submits a re-
oper:ipays for the signs and
quest for a permit to the Planning Department and obtains
_. approval for the locations.
b) 'I discussed the model tour signs concept with Cathedral City
and Rancho Mirage and find this to be working well. Please
note the pictures :I took of locations where these signs are
installed.
RECOMMENDATIONS =
I recommend option number 3 as it is more attractive and can incorporate a City
motto such as used in the Cathedral City sign "A City In Perfect Balance" or .
4,,te' use the City logo r.., .
I r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 14, 1985
MRS. LINDA BAUM 45 800 Deep Canyon Drive, explained that the fence
could be installed at a diagonal if the commission preferred this and that
ground cover and low trees would be planted. She felt that the wall as
proposed would improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood and the lot.
Chairman Crites closed the public testimony.
Mr. Cablay of public works indicated that the intent of the site triangle was in
question. He explained that it was a matter of curb line versus property line.
Using the curb line, the project would comply.
Commissioner Wood asked for clarification that the approval of this request would
not create any more of a traffic hazzard to the area. Mr. Cablay replied no and
noted that there had been two accidents in the past, but they were caused by
failure to yield right-of-way.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting the
findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1043, approving VAR 85-1, subject to
conditions. Carried 4-0.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. Continued Case No. ZOA 84-3 CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal
Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning the regulation of signs.
Mr. Diaz indicated that staff had prepared the resolution as requested by the _
commission regarding free standing signs and shopping center signs. He noted that
the Palm Desert Town Center would be allowed an additional identification sign
because it has a 1600 foot frontage onto Highway 111. No other frontages such as
on El Paseo would be allowed this additional signage because the frontages on El
Paseo are only 1400 feet. Mr. Diaz indicated that the political sign portion was
clean-up work.
Commissioner Wood asked for and received clarification that no changes had been
made since the last meeting. Mr. Diaz concurred.
Commissioner Richards asked for and received clarification on the intent of the
commission's action. Commissioner Erwood explained that the architectural
commission does not recommend directory signs except for pedestrian use and that
the commission changed the ordinance to concur with the recommendation of the
architectural commission.
Commissioner Wood noted that the town center is unique and that a directory sign
would have been okay with him. He explained that at the last meeting commission
voted 3-1 to support staff.
Chairman Crites indicated that he was still opposed to the additional signage at the
town center.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to approve the --
findings as presented by staff. Carried 2-1-1 (Chairman Crites voting against
based solely on opposition to additional signage, Commissioner Richards
abstaining.)
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1044, recommending approval of ZOA 84-3 to
the city council. Carried 2-1-1 (Chairman Crites voting against, Commissioner
Richards abstaining.)
2
w
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.1044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. (ZOA 84-
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was
continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a regular public
hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1985 planning commission adopted its resolution
number 1029 recommending approval of certain amendments to the sign regulation; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1985 city council held a public hearing concerning
the regulation of signs and at that time returned the matter to the planning
commission for review of the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and
illuminated signs; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1985 planning commission. held a public hearing to
consider the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and illuminated signs;
and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that the existing
provisions relating to illuminated signs were adequate and acceptable; and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that although the
existing provisions relating to freestanding monument signs were generally acceptable
and adequate, that the architectural commission should review freestanding monument
signs relative to specific criteria not presently codified; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1985 staff submitted the necessary resolution to create
specific criteria to be reviewed by the architectural commission; and
WHEREAS, even though commission on April 16, 1985 expressed support for the
-- new criteria, the matter was continued until May 7, 1985 to allow staff to prepare a
report concerning whether an additional freestanding sign should be permitted under
unique circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the commission concurred with the staff recommendation to allow an
additional freestanding sign on unique large developments while at the same time
strictly limiting the copy content of the signs in accordance with architectural
commission policy.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the project
to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission.
r
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1044
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of May, 1985, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: ERWOOD & WOOD
NOES: CRITES
ABSENT: DOWNS
ABSTAIN: RICHARDS
B FORD' CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secr y
/dlg
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: May 14, 1985
SUBJECT: Adoption of resolution recommending amendment of the
municipal code as it relates to signs.
DISCUSSION:
May 7, 1985 commission held a continued public hearing specifically regarding
freestanding signs. Based on the staff report and public input, commission agreed to
permit an additional freestanding identification sign for shopping centers and
industrial parks having in excess of 1600 feet of street frontage.
In addition, commission directed that code section 25,68.390 be amended to delete the
words "or businesses and/or activites conducted therein". This would limit the
freestanding signs to identifying the center rather than list a series of tenants within
the center. This has been the policy of the architectural commission and how the
section has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution recommending to city council approval of amendments to the sign
ordinance, code section 25.68.
Prepared by
Reviewed and Approved by
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was
continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a regular public
hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1985 planning commission adopted its resolution
number 1029 recommending approval of certain amendments to the sign regulation; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1985 city council held a public hearing concerning
the regulation of signs and at that time returned the matter to the planning
commission for review of the g
provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and
P
illuminated signs; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1985 planning commission held a public hearing to
consider the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and illuminated signs;
and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that the existing
provisions relating to illuminated signs were adequate and acceptable; and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that although the
existing provisions relating to freestanding monument signs were generally acceptable
and adequate, that the architectural commission should review freestanding monument
signs relative to specific criteria not presently codified; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1985 staff submitted the necessary resolution to create
specific criteria to be reviewed by the architectural commission; and
WHEREAS, even though commission on April 16, 1985 expressed support for the
new criteria, the matter was continued until May 7, 1985 to allow staff to prepare a
report concerning whether an additional freestanding sign should be permitted under
unique circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the commission concurred with the staff recommendation to allow an
additional freestanding sign on unique large developments while at the same time
strictly limiting the copy content of the signs in accordance with architectural
commission policy.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the project
to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendation as described
below:
1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of
the zoning ordinance.
2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected specific plans.
3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a zoning ordinance text: amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of 1985, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1: That Section 25.68.391 of the code of the City of Palm Desert be and the
same is added to read as follows:
25.68.391 Freestanding Sign Review Criteria
In reviewing freestanding signs as provided for in sections 25.68.310 and
25.68.390 the architectural commission shall specifically consider:
a. The height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
b. The distance from the sign to the street.
c. The color of the sign background and lettering thereon.
Section 2: That part "A" of Section 25.68.390 of the code of the City of Palm
Desert be and the same is amended to read as follows:
25.68.390 Signs in District and Regional Shopping Centers and Industrial Parks
In addition to the wall sign area allowed for individual businesses, shopping
centers and industrial parks in excess of three and one-half acres of land shall
be allowed one identification sign on each right-of-way. Such signs shall not
extend beyond the property line or into the right-of-way and shall be used
solely to identify the shopping center, shopping area, or industrial park.
Relative to such signs, the allowable sign area shall be based on ten square
feet of sign per acre. These signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet,
shall have a maximum height of twelve feet, and shall not be erected
without first having proper approval as provided in this chapter.
Notwithstanding the limit of one sign on each right-of-way when a shopping
center or industrial park has street frontage on any one street in excess of
1600 feet then an additional sign shall be permitted subject to the signs being
separated by a minimum distance of 400 feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1029
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL--CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ,'ZOA 84
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Calif-
ornia, did on the 5th day of February, 1985, hold a duly noticed public hearing
to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City
of Pahn Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-89 , to that the Director of Environmental Services
has determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. 1hat the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city
council approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of February, 1985, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: ERWOOD, RICHARDS, WOOD do CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DOWNS
ABSTAIN: NONE
BUEORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secri(tefy
/dlg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125.68.620. Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as defined
in section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five (5) square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty (50) feet.
C. Such signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election
date, except that in the case of a general election, political signs shall
not be required to be removed between the primary and general elections,
but shall be removed within ten (10) days after the general election date.
The applicant shall agree in writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety (90) days prior to
an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political signs.
private property, the applicant t
Where the sign is proposed to be placed on p p p y, pp
shall secure the permission of the property owner."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on the
second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent of
the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story buildings by
the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part),
1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to t e architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new devel-
opments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site plan review
procedure. (Ord. 129 54 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this chapter
shall be subject to the approval of the architectural commission process. In
approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing body shall utilize
the following review criteria: .
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of substantial
trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety
and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and other
signs in the area.
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual
elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing
and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing
where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual characteristics
of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause deprecia-
tion of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 54 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 51 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION 5: That Section 25.68.490 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as approved
by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sin Area -- Commercial and Industrial Uses. Sign design, location
an size shall be as approved by the architectural commission. Relative thereto,
the following sign areas shall apply:
A. Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way
which they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of front-
age to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural commission
determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with
the design of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to
the right-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Commercial businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a
public right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one
half square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design of the
building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way
from which its area is determined.
C. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way
in excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or
B of this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet, (Ord. 272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A, §t"5.38-12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.'•5-) of the Code of the City of Pala; Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of environ-
mental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall
facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales. The
director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the
type of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a period not to
exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special event signs constitute
a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be
permitted pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such
approval which shall specify the period during which the sign may
be displayed."
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: May 7, 1985 continued from April 2 and April 16, 1985.
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3 (addition)
REQUEST: Amendment to municipal code Chapter 25.68 concerning the
regulation of signs, specifically freestanding signs.
I. BACKGROUND:
April 2, 1985 planning commission held a public hearing to discuss freestanding
monument signs and illuminated signs. At that time the determination of
commission was that the existing code provisions relating to illuminated signs
were adequate. Commission decided to add certain criteria which were to be
evaluated by the architectural commission when reviewing freestanding signs.
The case was continued to April 16, 1985 to allow staff to prepare the appropriate
resolution. At the April 16, 1985 hearing representatives of the Palm Desert
Town Center appeared and once again urged planning commission to permit the
town center to have an additional freestanding sign on the Highway III frontage.
Commission agreed to consider the matter further and directed staff to prepare a
complete report on the matter.
Il. DISCUSSION:
Presently the sign code has two (2) sections relating to freestanding monument
signs. Section 25.68.3i0 relates to freestanding signs in the C-1 (general
commercial) zone. The C-1 area basically is El Paseo and Highway III east of
Highway 74 (except for Denny's).
In this area, freestanding signs are permitted only "when the building or complex
location or configuration or topographical variation or similar circumstances
preclude the effective use of a sign on the building". These criteria are
evaluated by the architectural commission.
Code section 25.68.390 provides criteria for evaluating freestanding signs in
district and regional shopping centers and industrial parks. The basic criteria
established for signs in this classification:
1. The center or park must have a minimum 3' acre size.
2. One (1) identification sign is permitted on each right-of-way.
3. Size of the sign is limited to 10 square feet of sign per acre of land in the
center to a maximum of 100 square feet.
4. These signs are to "be used solely to identify the shopping center, shopping
area, or businesses and/or activities conducted therein".
Code section 25.68.390 was established in its present form in 1981. Prior to that,
center identification signs had been limited to 15 square feet in area.
III. ANALYSIS:
Commission, at its April 2, 1985 meeting,had decided to add to the established
criteria for freestanding signs in the district and regional shopping centers and
industrial signs.
1. The height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
2. The distance from the street to the sign.
3. The color of the sign background and lettering thereon.
There would appear to be two issues which need to be addressed.
1. Should the number of identification signs be changed from the present one per
right-of-way.
2. The extent of information which can be included on the sign.
The representatives of the town center made a very valid point in that the town
center is a unique development in the city. On the north side of Highway III
between El Paseo and Monterey there are two (2) freestanding signs (one at the
Plaza Way entrance to the town center and the other at Denny's, not on the mall
site). On the south side of Highway III in the same stretch of highway are five
(5) freestanding signs, because the centers are smaller, have been developed at
different times and result from a fragmented ownership pattern. This may be
enough reason to justify a code amendment which could be written in a fashion
which would strictly limit its application based on a large amount of street
frontage and a large amount of minimum separation.
If commission decides that a second freestanding sign is warranted at the town
center then a second decision should be made by the planning commission.
Not withstanding the fact that code section 25.68.390 permits signs "to identify
the shopping center, shopping area, or businesses and/or activities conducted
therein" the architectural commission has specifically refused to approve any
freestanding sign containing more than one business name. The architectural
commission basically feels that freestanding signs to identify centers or areas or
a business can be acceptable but when more than one business is listed the sign
tends to become cluttered, unreadable and unacceptable from an architectural
standpoint. At its April 9, 1985 meeting, architectural commission refused to
approve a new freestanding sign at Columbia Center (facing El Paseo) because it
was going to be effectively a large directory sign. The commission's position was
that directory signs are provided for in the code and are to be pedestrian
oriented. The Palms to Pines center east of Plaza Way went thru a similar
situation before revising the sign to just say "Palms to Pines East".
The point of bringing this item to the attention of the planning commission is to
make it clear that even if the planning commission agrees to change the code to
permit a second freestanding sign at the town enter there may be considerable
difficulty getting the desired sign approved, in that six (6) businesses are proposed
on the sign. In addition to the architectural commission's long standing opposition
to large directory signs is the fact that five (5) of the six (6) businesses already
have external wall mounted signs.
IV. CONCLUSION:
Staff concurs that the town center is a unique situation in the city and as such
should be afforded special consideration as it relates to freestanding signs. The
code should be amended to permit a second freestanding sign when a center has
more than 1600 feet of street frontage and require a minimum separation of 400
feet between freestanding signs.
However, staff can not recommend approval of the proposed sign to the
architectural commission because staff concurs that business directory signs
should be pedestrian oriented. For this reason staff is recommending that code
section 25.68.390 be amended to delete the words "or businesses and/or activities
conducted therein". The section then would permit freestanding shopping center,
shopping area and industrial park identification signs only.
If these amendments are adopted then the town center could erect another
freestanding sign similar to the existing one at Plaza Way.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the commission continue this case to May 21, 1985 and direct staff to
prepare an appropriate resolution to permit one additional freestanding sign
pursuant to code section 25.68.390 on any street frontage where a center has
street frontage in excess of 1600 feet subject to the signs being separated by a
minimum of 400 feet and that code section 25.68.390 be amended to delete the
words "or businesses and/or activities conducted therein".
Prepared by =T/? 44
i
Reviewed and Approved by
/dlg
f A
r MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 16, 1985
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Case No. ZOA 85-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for consideration of an amendment to the Palm
Desert Municipal Code (Chapter 25, Palm Desert Zoning
Ordinance) by adding a new code section which would
prohibit construction, development or use in commercial or
industrial zones in hillside areas that are an average 10%
or greater in slope.
Mr. Sawa outlined the staff report and explained the changes recommended by the
city attorney. He noted that the proposed resolution had been revised to reflect
those changes and recommended adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Richards expressed concern over determination of total slope when
more than one slope is in a particular area and stated that if the commission
follows what the city attorney suggested it would mean that the total slope would
refer to the first slope. Mr. Sawa replied that in each case a determination would
be made as to where the toe of each slope was located and that if more than one
slope was involved, it would provide some leeway for interpretation.
Chairman Crites suggested the addition of the word "future" be inserted in front of
development (i.e. Mr. Moller would be made legal non-conforming" so that he could
not rebuild). Commissioner Richards noted that if Mr. Moller's nursery is changed
to a different zoning - the planning commission would not want to allow legal non-
conforming if commercial zoned. He indicated that the property is a flat piece of
land that is not in the hillside and wanted a clear definition of what is permitted.
Mr. Diaz suggested a two week continuance for a study session item.
Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and requested a motion of
continuance.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue
Case No. ZOA 85-1 as a May 7, 1985, study session item. Carried 4-0.
B. Continued Case o�84-3 ITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal
Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning the regulation of signs.
Mr. Smith reviewed the background of the case and stated that the resolution
would be added to the previously approved resolution from February and then sent
to the city council. Staff recommended adoption of the resolution.
Chairman Crites opened the public testimony.
MR. LEE HAVEN, 45-450 Choctau Circle, general manager of the Palm
Desert Town Center suggested that the planning commission allow
themselves to change regulation for the sign criteria. He felt the present
ordinance was restrictive.
MR. ROBERT GEORGE, Golden State Sign Systems, stated that signage
effects the whole community and encouraged the planning commission to
keep the fertile atmosphere of the past.
Chairman Crites closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Richards asked if staff had seen the proposed sign for the Palm
Desert Town Center. Mr. Smith outlined the sign design and request.
-2-
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 16, 1985
Commissioner Richards felt that the commission should discuss this matter further
if the people from the Town Center and along El Paseo feel they don't have
adequate signage.
Commissioner Wood asked for comment from staff. Mr. Diaz explained that the
matter was a policy decision and that while understanding why the town center
would like additional signage on the basis of being a regional center, the complex
across the street is also a regional center.
Commissioner Richards stated that he felt the Palm Desert Town Center and the
center across the street could not be considered the same and suggested looking
into the current sign regulations for both centers.
Commissioner Wood indicated that he was inclined to grant this request unless
shown differently.
Chairman Crites commented that he did not think that the additional signage was
warranted and saw no reason to change the policy.
Commissioner Richards requested that staff listen to the specific reasons why the
Palm Desert Town Center would like additional signage and study signs that are in
the same zoning. He stated that he would like to see the policy reviewed as well as
the center across the street. He felt more discussion was needed.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Wood, continuing Case
No. ZOA 84-3 to meeting of May 7, 1985. Carried 4-0.
C. Case No. CUP 17-78 - BON APPETIT, Applicant
Request to expand an existing restaurant at the northeast
corner of El Paseo and Larkspur Lane by use of a 576
square foot outdoor patio for dining.
Mr. Drell gave a video presentation of the site and outlined the request. Staff
added as a condition of approval that if additional dining was allowed some
acceptable fencing should be required to designate the boundary and recommended
that plans be submitted to the Architectural Commission within six weeks.
Commissioner Downs suggested the use of a movable barrier. Commissioner Wood
asked for and received clarification as to the location of the east boundary.
Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address
the commission.
MR. GREG FRECK, 73-640 El Paseo, explained that he had a petition with
1200 signatures indicating that they like the outside dining and an
endorsement from the commercial committee. He noted that he would like
to place flower pots with maybe a chain link between the pots.
MR. LYMAN MARTIN, 71-251 Cholla, stated that in the past month he had
been conducting a parking survey and felt there was adequate parking.
Chairman Crites closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Richards stated that he was concerned about the parking. He noted
that accross the street there was a lot of up street parking available, but now there
is a center on the opposite corner that has no parking. He felt that if the
applicant's neighbors agree to the parking requirements then a six month to one
year review could be considered.
Chairman Crites stated that because of the existence of the project and its
operation under the maximum parking, that if staff had no object a one year review
would be in order.
-3-
1 �
I
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: April 16, 1985 continued from April 2, 1985
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3 (addition)
REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68 concerning regulation of
signs, specifically freestanding signs.
I. BACKGROUND:
April 2, 1985 planning commission reconsidered the proposed sign amendments that
had been recommended to city council on February 5, 1985. Two additional areas
were addressed on April 2, 1985 as follows:
a. freestanding monument signs
b. appropriateness of illuminated signs
Commission basically felt that the code sections controlling illuminated signs were
adequate. Commission felt that the freestanding monument sign regulations were
generally acceptable however, it was felt that additional criteria should be utilized
by the architectural commission in reviewing freestanding signs.
II. DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared a resolution which if adopted will result in the additional
criteria being added to the sign ordinance. If this resolution is adopted it will be
forwarded to city council with the amendments which were recommended
on February 28, 1985.
Staff has been given to understand that representatives of the Palm Desert Town
Center will be present to further pursue the matter of amending the ordinance to
permit an additional freestanding sign at the town center. Their presentation
could be made under oral communications or the commission may wish to re-open
the public hearing to allow this additional public input.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 (addition) by adoption of Resolution
No. which would recommend the establishment of specific additional review
criteria for freestanding signs.
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert
recommending approval to the city council certain additions to the municipal
code (section 25.68.391. - freestanding signs."
Prepared by j?Z i"'^-
Reviewed and Approved by
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _ I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 18th day of December, 1984 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was
continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a regular public
hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1985 planning commission adopted its resolution number
1029 recommending approval of certain amendments to the sign regulations; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1985 city council held a public hearing concerning the
regulation of signs and at that time returned the matter to the planning commission
for review of the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and illuminated
signs; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1985 planning commission held a public hearing to consider
the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and illuminated signs; and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that the existing
provisions relating to illuminated signs were adequate and acceptable; and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that although the
existing provisions relating to freestanding monument signs were generally acceptable
and adequate that the architectural commmission should review freestanding
monument signs relative to specific criteria not presently codified; and
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project
to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commision of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of 1985, by the following vote, to
wit:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dlg
� I
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1: That Section 25.68.391 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert be and the
same is added to read as follows:
1125.68.391 Freestanding Sign Review Criteria.
In reviewing freestanding signs as provided for in sections 25.68.310 and 25.68.390
the architectural commission shall specifically consider:
a. The height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
b. The distance from the sign to the street.
c. The color of the sign background and lettering thereon.
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
i
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: April 16, 1985 continued from April 2, 1985
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3 addition)
REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68 concerning regulation of
signs, specifically freestanding signs.
I. BACKGROUND:
April 2, 1985 planning commission reconsidered the proposed sign amendments that
had been recommended to city council on February 5, 1985. Two additional areas
were addressed on April 2, 1985 as follows:
a. freestanding monument signs
b. appropriateness of illuminated signs
Commission basically felt that the code sections controlling illuminated signs were
adequate. Commission felt that the freestanding monument sign regulations were
generally acceptable however, it was felt that additional criteria should be utilized
by the architectural commission in reviewing freestanding signs.
II. DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared a resolution which if adopted will result in the additional
criteria being added to the sign ordinance. If this resolution is adopted it will be
forwarded to city council with the amendments which were recommended
on February 28, 1985.
Staff has been given to understand that representatives of the Palm Desert Town
Center will be present to further pursue the matter of amending the ordinance to
permit an additional freestanding sign at the town center. Their presentation
could be made under oral communications or the commission may wish to re-open
the public hearing to allow this additional public input.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 (addition) by adoption of Resolution
No. which would recommend the establishment of specific additional review
criteria for freestanding signs.
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert
recommending approval to the city council certain additions to the municipal
code (section 25.68.391. - freestanding signs."
Prepared by
t
Reviewed and Approved by /Z
/dlg
R �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 2, 1985
A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 10:40 P.M.
B. Case No. PP 85-3 - DESERT CITIES BAPTIST CHURCH, Applicant
Request for approval of a negative declaration of
environmental impact and precise plan of design to allow
construction and operation of a church facility (and use of
temporary modular structure for church services) on five
gross acres in the PR-5 zone (planned residential,
maximum five dwelling units per acre), located on the east
side of Portola Avenue, approximately 700 feet north of
Country Club Drive.
Mr. Diaz outlined the salient points from the staff report and recommended
approval.
Commissioner Erwood asked for clarification regarding the construction of the six
foot wall. Mr. Diaz indicated that the wall would be constructed with phase I along
the easterly property line as a condition of approval.
Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address
the commission.
MR. AL BRAUN, 51-730 Avenida Juarez in La Quinta, pastor of the church,
indicated that he was present to answer any questions.
Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSTION
to the proposal. Seeing no one, Chairman Crites closed the public testimony.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt the
findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0.
Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1034, approving PP 85-3, subject to
conditions. Carried 3-0.
D. Continued Case No. ZOO CITY OF PALM DESERT,
Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal
Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning the regulation of signs.
Mr. Diaz indicated that two concerns were expressed at the joint city
council/planning commission tour: internally illuminated signs and height of ground
mounted signs. Mr. Diaz felt that the present ordinance section regarding
illuminated signs remain. Mr. Diaz outlined the regulations regarding ground
mounted signs and indicated that he felt no change should be made to the code at
this time.
Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to
speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this item.
MR. JIM ENGLE, 46-120 Calhoun, Indio, of Imperial Sign Company spoke in
favor of the present ordinance.
MR. JERRY BOON, Golden State Sign Systems, also agreed with present
regulations.
MR. ROBERT GEORGE, indicated that the commission might wish to
change the code to allow for special circumstances.
Mr. Diaz indicated that Mr. George was referring to additional signage for the
Town Center along Highway 111. Mr. George concurred. Mr. Diaz explained that
-4-
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 2, 1985
staff recommendation was no. Chairman Crites felt that this was the opinion of
the commission and council expressed at the joint meeting.
Chairman Crites indicated that sign color was a concern. Mr. Diaz replied that he
had spoken with the architectural commission regarding that sign color, and the
height of monument signs and the relation of the height to the street.
Chairman Crites closed the public testimony.
Commission concurred with Mr. Diaz.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to instruct
staff to bring back the ordinance on April 16, 1985. Carried 3-0.
Commission indicated that staff should respond in writing to Ms. Triphon's letter.
VIll. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. CASE NO. DP O1-82 - CARVER MANAGEMENT, Applicant
Request for approval of a minor modification to screening
requirements along street for shopping center located at
the southeast corner of monterey Avenue and Country Club
Drive.
Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant wished to utilize a 30 inch berm on
approximately one third of the frontage along Country Club Drive in place of a 36
inch berm and utilize grass and indicated that the architectural commission did not
see any complications, but because it was a modification of the plan which the
planning commission reviewed it was brought to their attention. Mr. Diaz
indicated that if the commission determined this to be a minor modification, the
change would fall within his jurisdiction.
Commission agreed that the matter was a minor modification.
B. CASE NOS. PP 84-24a and TT 20199 - WARD, Applicant
City council at its March 28, 1985, meeting sent the precise plan of design
to the planning commission for review of a modification.
Mr. Diaz indicated that the project was changed at the last city council meeting
from two story to one story and affirmed the 3 bedroom 2 bath $1240 units.
Commission concurred.
IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lyman Martin, 71-251 Cholla, indicated that he had met the application
deadline of March 8, 1985, to be on the agenda for the April 2 meeting.
Mr. Diaz explained that there were no application deadlines assuring hearing dates
and that the applicant was scheduled for the April 16, 1985 meeting.
X. COMMENTS
None.
Xl. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Chairman Crites, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to adjourn the
meeting. Carried 3-0.
The meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Am
-5-
w
� r
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: April 2, 1985
CASE NO: ZOA 84 3
REQUEST: Further consideration to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68 concerning
regulation of signs.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendments to the sign ordinance as recommended by the planning
commission on February 5, 1985 were reviewed by city council February 28, 1985. At
that time the matter was referred back to planning commission to review the concerns
of city council which were brought up during the February 23, 1985 joint city
council/planning commission study session.
In addition a letter was received from Daphne Triphon of who resides in the Sandpiper
development objecting to the use of fluorescent signs in the commercial development
at Palms to Pines West, Phase II.
DISCUSSION:
In the matter of the concerns of city council discussed on February 23, 1985 staff will
defer to planning commission in the discussion thereon.
In the matter of Daphne Triphon's letter, staff can assure commission that there has
been no variance from the sign ordinance to permit fluorescent signs. The signs in
question were reviewed and approved through the architectural commission.
The present sign ordinance has no limitation on whether signs can be illuminated or
not. Basically this matter has been left to the discretion of the architectural
commission.
Should commission feel that internally or externally illuminated signs have become a
problem, then staff would suggest that rather than banning them outright that a
resolution of planning commission be forwarded to the architectural commission. Said
resolution would ask that architectural commission make a specific finding in all
illuminated signs that it approves that an illuminated sign in this location will not
create an adverse environmental impact on adjacent property.
Should commission feel that the intensity of illuminated light used in signs is a
problem staff could provide a new code section which would strictly limit and control
the intensity of light used therein.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not in a position to prepare a recommendation on these concerns until we
understand commission's position. Once commission has delineated its position staff
will prepare the necessary resolutions or ordinance amendments and bring them back
to commission for adoption at the next meeting. Staff recommends that this case be
continued to April 16, 1985 at 2:00 p.m.
Prepared by
Reviewed and Approved by
1713 Sandpiper
Palm Desert , CA
February 26, 1985
inTin
Mr. Buford Crites " i 3 1985
Palm Desert Planning Commission
Palm Desert City Hall E CITY OF ALL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Dear Mr. Crites :
Kindly note this letter is being sent to you to voice opposition
to the developer on El Paseo who is installing fluorescent
signs for his development .
In view of the fact Palm Desert is sensitive and demanding when
it comes to attractive signs that blend with the enviroment , why
has this unattractive and noise producing signing being allowed?
Until now there has been a distinct uniformity and appealling
signing going on. in the community. Has there been a variance
on the zoning to allow for the inappropriate lights?
There is no business on E1 Paseo,to date, that has this type
of ugly, unnecessary signing. Why is this being allowed?
I look forward to learning why this fluorescent signing on
approximately ten shops on E1 Paseo is being allowed.
Very truly yours,
' v�
Daphne Triphon
cc: Mayor, Palm Desert
R. Diaz, Planning Department
Architectural Review Board
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNC, MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1985
r � • • • � • � a r * * � a • . . a r a • • • r r • . a � r r • a
B. CONSIDERATION OF A RE UEST \FORPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPMENT All EMENT, PURSUANT TO NiCIPAt CODE
CHAPTER 25.3; SPE FYING TERMS AND CON
ONS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF A EIGHT DER UNIT APARTME T PROJECT
CONTAINING TWO UNIT AFFORDABLE TO MO E INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS LOCATED THE NORTH SIDE OF SA TA ROSA
WAY, 300 FEET WEST OF N PASCUAL. WILLIAM S ENCER,
APPLICANT. CASE NO. PP 4-44. (Continued from mee ' gs of
December 27, 1984, January 10, and January 24, and Februa 14,
1985).
Mayor Sri der noted that this was a continu public hearing and aske\fo
staff's repo .
Mr. Sa reported that the Council had r eived a memo from the
Director Environmental Services relative o a request from Mr.
Spencer, th applicant, that this matter be cont ued indefinitely until
completion o the La Palma Village Specific P1a . His request was
based on the fact that the plan will be aking land use
recommendations fecting his property.
Mr. Erwin stated tha he would prefer that the Council ontinue this
matter to a specific ate instead of denying the requ st without
prejudice or continuing it indefinitely.
ouncilman Kelly moved to contin this matter until the Council mee 'ng of
June 13th, 85, and readvertise it for a pub 'c hearing at that time. Motion was
seconded by Ja son and carried by unanimous vote ff the Council.
C. NSIDERATION OF A MASSA FOR MASSAGE ON AN
OU -CALL BASIS. WILBUR J. BROWNr APPLICANT.
Mayor Snyder clared the public hearing open an asked for staffs report.
Mr. Altman reported that this was discuss in Study Session and
recommended at the permit be approved.
Mayor Snyder invited inp t in FAVOR of this request, and\one was offered.
e invited input in OPPO ION to this request, and none was offered. He
de ared the public hearing cl ed.
Counci an Wilson moved to app ve a massagist permit for Wil r J. Brown
0 operate massage an out-call basis. Motio was seconded by Jackson and rried by
u nimous vote of the ouncil.
D. RE UES FOR CONSIDERATIO OF APPLICATION FOR BI GO
PERMIT. P �M DESERT ELKS LOD #2660 APPLICANT.
Ma r Snyder declared t e public hearing open an asked for staff's report.
M Altman reporte hat this had been discu ed in Study Session and
reco ended approval a bingo permit.
Mayor Snyder in 'ted input in FA R of this request, and one was offered.
He invited input in PPOSITION to his request, and none s offered. He
declared the public he ing closed.
Councilmember Jackson m ed to approve application for Bingo ermit by
Palm Desert Elks Lodge #2660. Motion s seconded by elly and carried by un imous
vote of the Council.
E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMEN TO MUNICIPAL COD
CHAPTER 25.68 CONCERNING THE REGULA N OF SIGNS, CASE
NO, ZOA 84-3,
Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open and asked for staff's report.
-4-
t MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL mEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1985
• r a► r * * +► * • r . � • +r r � :r r r � a a r r �► * a s s r � r •
Mr. Altman reported that this had been discussed in Study Session and
recommended that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission
to consider concerns of the Council during the February 23rd Joint City
Council/Planning Commission Study Session.
Mayor Snyder invited input in FAVOR of this request, and none was offered.
He invited input in OPPOSITION to this request, and none was offered. He
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Wilson moved to refer this matter to the Planning Commission
with instruction to review the concerns of the Council which were brought up during the
February 23rd Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session. Motion was
seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council.
IX. RESOL IONS
A. RES LUTION NO. 85-13 - RESOLUTION OF TH CITY COUNCIL
OF T CITY OF PALM D ERT, CALIFORNIA, A ENDING THE
1984/85 FISCAL YEAR BUD T TO PROVIDE FO MID-YEAR
ADJUST NTS.
Mr. Altman eported that this had en discussed at lenXn
Session and re mmended adoption of R solution No. 85-13
Upon motion by Kelly, cond by Jackson, Resol lion No. 85-13
by unanimovote of the Council.
X. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 420 - AN RDINANCE OF THE CITY��COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT\, CALIFORNIA, ADDING C}3APTER 9.24
TO TITLE 9 OF THE CODE "OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFOR IA, TO BE KNOW\4 AS THE NOISE bONTROL
ORDINAN , AND DELETING CHAPTER 15.28 OF TITLE 06F THE
CODE OF T CITY OF PALM DESERT.
Mr. Altman rep led that this had beeediscussed in detail m Study
Session and recom ended passing this ordin%nce to second reading.
Pon motion by Kelly, seco by Jackson, Ordinance No. 420 was passed to
second readi by unanimous vote of the until.
B. ORDINANCE NO. 421 - A ORDINANCE OF THE ITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESE T, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS
0.040 AND 8.20.080 PERTA ING TO PUBLIC NUKES.
Mr. ltman reported that this ha been discussed in Stu Session and
Y
recom ended passing Ordinance No. 421 to second reading.\
Councilm mber Benson asked whether the "land" referred to in this
ordinance overed property which people eave and do not take
�are of
and which the City has to then go in an abate. Mr. Frank Alen,
Director of bode Compliance, stated that the ordinance applies to
improved and unimproved lots.
UU on motion by Kelly, si'cond by Benson, Ordinance o. 421 was passed to
second reading'v unanimous vote of the Council.
For Ado tion: \
A. ORDINANCE NO. 413 - AN'
N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OUNCIL OF
THE\CITY OF PALM D�SERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO TERMS AND
CONDITIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF A 9 UNIT APARTMENT
PROJECT\CONTAINING 2 UNITES AFFORDABLE BY MODERATE
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. RELATED\CASE NO. PP 84-37. LEE CAREL
6c SANDRA CAREL, APPLICANTS. \
-5-
p
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 18th day of December, 1984 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was
continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a regular public
hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1985 planning commission adopted its resolution number
1029 recommending approval of certain amendments to the sign regulations; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1985 city council held a public hearing concerning the
regulation of signs and at that time returned the matter to the planning commission
for review of the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and illuminated
signs; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 1985 planning commission held a public hearing to consider
the provisions relating to freestanding monument signs and illuminated signs; and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that the existing
provisions relating to illuminated signs were adequate and acceptable; and
WHEREAS, it was the decision of the planning commission that although the
existing provisions relating to freestanding monument signs were generally acceptable
and adequate that the architectural commmission should review freestanding
monument signs relative to specific criteria not presently codified; and
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm
Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project
to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General
Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commision of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
PP g
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of , 1985, by the following vote, to
wit:
r
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dlg
r 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
Section 1: That Section 25.68.391 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert be and the
same is added to read as follows:
"25.68.391 Freestanding Sign Review Criteria.
In reviewing freestanding signs as provided for in sections 25.68.310 and 25.68.390
the architectural commission shall specifically consider:
a. The height of the sign relative to the adjacent street.
b. The distance from the sign to the street.
c. The color of the sign background and lettering thereon.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space Is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(201S.5 C.C.P.)
m
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, n'
County of Riverside :
c n Cl)
I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM DE;SERT,,
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over o C�
the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of co
or interested in the above-entitled matter. I
am the principal clerk of the printer of the PROPOSED...AMENDM.ENTS. .. ...
TO S.IGN. . ..REGULATIONS. . .... .... . ... . . . . .... .
DESERT POST
CIW0FPAI, PIT
LEGAL NGTfCE.'.
Proposed Atte"mmb
le sign Regulations
a newspaper of general circulation, printed FNOTICElSHEREB y�T WEN that a
public hearing wlllry _1WIdefpre
p Bi week1p the Palm Disef('PlAenlyg Com I
and published .....-.........<................. � .mission to firslde[A 44UP1 by tha
I City of Palm Desed lot approval of
proposed amendments to 9y SIP
11 ordinance, Among offyed{Ppi1ls
in the City of ..�a+.�..D.e.$1'-.r.0............. the Planning CgoO1118 m. r
County of Riverside, and which news. Brous: me a a vtasr of
proMbitnq Infernally 1NpmHt1Ae1
paper has been adjudged a newspaper I
siqns
SAID pubac hearing will be hold on
of general circulation by the .Superior I Tuesday,Apre 2.1W al M..PIn
Court of the Count of Riverside, State of in Ins Palm Desert C c&anted
y Gearing Chamber: 73510 Fred
Waring. DrtJ@.r, Paimlm Desert,
California, under the dateof,lD/.5,, 19 .44, Cahlomla.uwac place
, an interested par parpaq,syg tnviled 10
attend and be. heald. .ll You
83658
challenge the Pmp03ad Actions In {
••. that the notice, coun,you may tie Wed IQ raising
r
Case Number ............... only those issues you or someone
of which the annexed is a printed copy (set else raised at the public hearing
I deecrlbed In tar Wile, et in
in type not smaller than nonpareil), has I Whitt eto py council re vpnae"(pt°w a;N
been published in each regular and entire commissbn) at, or prior 10. the
l puosc hearing.
issue of said newspaper and not in any RAMONA.DIA2,
supplement thereof on the following dates, Pao Deesert
to-wit: PrMngtornmesion
(Pub.D.P.Mat 22,19951
..........3(2 ...................................
all in the year 19 A5.
I certify (or declare) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at.......Palm Desert
.................................
California, this.2.2nd dayof.'AMa ,- 1985
ign are
Free cosies ei this hill form maybe secured fromi
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE
BUREAU, INC.
Legal Advertising Clearing House
120 west Second St., Los Angeles,Calif. 90012
Telephone: (213) 625.2541
ohtalo ndvest GENERAL rreof et Publication
when ordtrine this form.
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
March 14, 1985
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
Proposed Amendments to Sign Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of
proposed amendments to the sign ordinance. Among other matters the Planning
Commission will discuss the appropriateness of prohibiting internally illuminated signs.
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 2, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the Palm
Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council (or planning
commission) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
March 22, 1985 Palm Desert Planning Commission
,yt}
.r
: r 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
February 7, 1985
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
Proposed Amendments to Sign Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of the
proposed amendments to the sign ordinance.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, February 28, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. in the Palm
Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
PUBLISH: Desert Post
February 15, 1985
Am
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1029
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIP E SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. OA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Calif-
ornia, did on the 5th day of February, 1985, hold a duly noticed public hearing
to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City
of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services
has determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city
council approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of February, 1985, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: ERWOOD, RICHARDS, WOOD & CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DOWNS
ABSTAIN: NONE 1 ��
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST: /
t
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secr t y
/dig
l w
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
April 5, 1985
Ms. Daphne Triphon
1713 Sandpiper
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Ms. Triphon:
The planning commission at its regular meeting of April 2, 1985, reviewed illuminated
signs as part of the review of our present sign regulations and decided that the present
illuminated criteria for signs should be maintained. I am enclosing a copy of that section
of the ordinance which regulates those signs.
At this time the commission has chosen not to recommend to the city council that the
City of Palm Desert prohibit illuminated signs.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
!,iRAMON A. DIAZ
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
RAD/tm
25 . 68 .450--25 . 68 . 50o
2. That the location and design of a proposed sic^ i-
close proximity to anv residential district does ^Ct ad-
versely affect the value Or character of the adjacent
dential district. res=-
(Ord . 129 §4 (part) , 197. : Ord. 9g §1
(Part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .38-16 .02) .
25 . 62 . 450 Sims facing private aracert., proh'biied
AlI signs authorized under tail chapter must be pinged or. the side of procerty facing on public or private rich=-of-way.
(Ord. 129 §4 (pa-t) , 1977 : Ord. 98 §1 (part) , 19i5 � E:fai^it
A §25 .38-16 .03)
25 . 62 . 460 Recuired inforzatien on signs . Each sic-
shall have the name or the iva.'{er, t^e date Of e erect-on,
and the per-iit number. Such infarnation shall be clearly
legible and an the lower right hand corner of the face or
the sign in a conspicuous place . As an alternative, a decal
issued by the city as a Part of the sign approval process
may be placed on the Sian at a location visible and readable
fram the public or private right-of-way . (Ord. 129 54 (part) ,
1977 : Ord. 98 §1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A §25 .38-16 .04) .
25 .68 .470 Proper maintenance of signs . The user,
owner, or lesee of a sign authorized under this chapter shall
maintain it in a manner satisfactory to the director of
environmental services or his authorized representative . All
signs shall be maintained in a neat, attractive condition and
in adequate repair. (Ord. 129 94 (part) , 1977 : Ord. 98 §1
(part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 .38-16 .05)..
25 . 68 . 480 Sian colors . The number and type of colors
used shall be as approved by the design review board. (Ord.
272r (par.) , 1.9 Ord. 129 §4 (part) , 1977: Ord. 98 §1
(Part) , 1975 : Exhibit A 525 . 38-16 . 06) .
25 . 68 . 490 Glare from signs . All illuminated signs in
a1_ zones shall be caesigned in such a manner as to avoid
undue glare or reflection of light on private property in
the surrounding area; in no event shall any sign exceed ten _
candlepower at ten feet from the face of the sign. (Ord .
129 54 (part) , 1977 : Ord. 98 91 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A
525 .38-16 . 08) .
25 .68 .500 Location of right-angle signs. Right-angle
signs on faces or buildings shall not extend over eighteen
inches beyond the face of the building where located, except
for pedestrian-oriented signs . No right-angle sign shall
extend below eight feet from the sidewalk or the right-of-
way. Right-angle signs supported by posts or standards shall
429 (Palm Desert 7/82)
1713 Sandpiper
Palm Desert, CA
February 26, 1985
Mr. Buford Crites -b1R i 3 1985
Palm Desert Planning Commission
Palm Desert City Hall ENVIRONiLIENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Dear Mr. Crites :
Kindly note this letter is being sent to you to voice opposition
to the developer on El Paseo who is installing fluorescent
signs for his development .
In view of the fact Palm Desert is sensitive and demanding when
it comes to attractive signs that blend with the enviroment , why
has this unattractive and noise producing signing being allowed?
Until now there has been a distinct uniformity and appealling
signing going on in the community. Has there been a variance
on the zoning to allow for the inappropriate lights?
There is no business on E1 Paseo, to date, that has this type
of ugly, unnecessary signing. Why is this being allowed?
I look forward to learning why this fluorescent signing on
approximately ten shops on E1 Paseo is being allowed.
Very truly yours,
Daphne Triphon
cc : Mayor, Palm Desert
R. Diaz, Planning Department
Architectural Review Board
�f f
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 5, 1985 continued from December 18, 1984 and
January 15, 1985.
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68, concerning
regulation of signs.
I. BACKGROUND:
This proposed amendment to the sign ordinance was before the planning
commission at its December 18, 1984 meeting when commission requested
clarification by the city attorney of certain items relating to political
signs. The city attorney's memo dated January 10, 1985 was reviewed by
commission at its January 15, 1985 meeting. At the meeting of January
15, 1985 commission arrived at a concensus and directed the city attorney
to prepare the appropriate language for the code amendment.
In addition commission directed that in the amendment to section 68.270
the worts "commercial" should be inserted prior to the word "business" in
each subsection.
Finally, at the public hearing of January 15, 1985 a gentleman spoke and
requested that commission review the matter of off site directional signs
for housing developments. Commission indicated that this item would be
discussed further at the February 5, 1985 hearing.
II. ANALYSIS:
The necessary g P r
r changes have been incorporated an
d are included in the draft ft
resolution attached. Should commission decide to further amend the sign
ordinance based on information submitted at the Fubruary 5, 1985 hearing
then the matter may have to be referred back to staff for preparation.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No.
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert recommending approval to the City Council
of certain amendments to the municipal code (section 25.68 -Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution (as revised)
2. Legal Notice
3. City Attorney's report of January 10, 1985.
4. City Attorney's report of January 22, 1985.
5. Director of Code Compliance memo dated January 16, 1985.
Prepared by
Approved by
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Calif-
ornia, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing
which was continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a
regular public hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section
25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City
of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city
council approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this _ day of 1984, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dig
1 �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
Se and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125.68.620. Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as defined
in section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five (5) square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty (50) feet.
C. Such signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election
date, except that in the case of a general election, political signs shall
not be required to be removed between the primary and general elections,
but shall be removed within ten (10) days after the general election date.
The applicant shall agree in writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety (90) days prior to
an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political signs.
Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant
shall secure the permission of the property owner."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on the
second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent of
the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story buildings by
the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part),
1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new devel-
opments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site plan review
procedure. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this chapter
shall be subject to the approval of the architectural ,commission process. In
approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing body shall utilize
the following review criteria:
A. That the sign its r;ecessary for the applicants enjoyment of substantial
trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety
and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and other
a bea a s ous
signs in the area.
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual
elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing
and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing
where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual characteristics
of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause deprecia-
tion of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION 5: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as approved
by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sign Area -- Commercial and Industrial Uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission. Relative thereto,
the fbllowing sign areas shall apply:
A. Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way
which they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of front-
age to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural commission
determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with
the design of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to
the right-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Commercial businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a
public right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one
half square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design of the
building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way
from which its area is determined.
C. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way
in excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or
B of this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet, (Ord. 272 (part), 1981:
Orr. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of environ-
mental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall
facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales. The
director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the
type of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a period not to
exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special event signs constitute
a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be
permitted pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such
approval which shall specify the period during which the sign may
be displayed."
1 '
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
December 21, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
Proposed Amendments to Sign Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a meeting, open to the public, will be held by the
committee of the whole of the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider certain
amendments to the sign ordinance (including revisions as they relate to political signs).
SAID public meeting will be held on Tuesday. January 15, i985, at 12:00 noon, at the Palm
Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 28, 1984, and
January 4, 1984
A
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
A PROFESSIONAL LW CORPOAATIA Cr1 SL��I \J`r PALM $PRIN GS;OFFICE
OAVIO J.ERWINt jam
J.JOHN ANOERHOLT 74.090 EL PASEO .,,1 �6U'9AST'TAH OUITY-�MGCALLVM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSOH POST OFFICE BOX 789 SUITE 203
MICHAEL J.ANOELSON PpL�M` 6(.J)Ka S,CALIFORNIA 92262
OOUO us S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 Jrr`I ll 14 jTT-1 —
OPEOORY w,6wAJ1AN TELEPHONE�619�566.2611 TELEPHONE 322-2-66
CHARLES M.ELLIS
LANTSON E.ELOREO r^,NVIRONMEr�Ty�2"ifa'��f!r"i""LTON,CPA
JOHN L.SUPPLE :F ?ALN D@&iRIBTRATOR
CAL MLINTOSH
6APSARA E.NRISTAL
WILLIAM K.HANLIN-
.MLM![P GMTISM COLUNIM.MANITOGA*NO
GNAOIAN IAP.NOT ADMITTED IM CAU FOP nIA.
MEMO
TO: PALM DESERT PLA4NNING COMMISSION
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: January 10, 1985
RE: CITY SIGN ORDINANCE
On December 18, 1984, the Planning Commission requested
the City Attorneys opinion with respect to the following:
1. Legality of the City' s sign ordinance;
2. The source of the City' s power to regulate signs;
3 . The purpose for the recommended changes in the
City' s sign ordinance, especially with regard to
political signs.
RESPONSE
Source of Palm Desert' s Power to Regulate Signs.
GovernmentCode .section 65850(b) `provides that the City
Council of the City of Palm .Desert may by ordinance regulate
signs and billboards. In addition, the City' s police power
to protect the public health, safety and welfare has been
used as a basis to uphold the City' s sign regulations. In
addition, Government Code section 38774 provides that the
legislative body may regulate the exhibition posting or
carrying of banners, placards, posters, cards, pictures,
signs or advertisements in or on the street or on or upon
buildings, fences, billboards or other structures; or on
d
upon any pole, in any sidewalk, alley, street lane, court,
park or. other public place. In addition, pursuant to
Government Code section 38774(b) , the City may regulate the
susp
ension of banners, flags, signs, advertisements,
posters, pictures or cards across or over any sidewalk,
alley, street lane, court, park or other public place or
Memo to: PDPC
From: D.S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 2
such suspension from fences, - poles, houses or other
structures.
Limitations on the City' s Ability to Regulate Signs and
Outdoor Advertising.
As a general rule, the First Amendment of the United
States and California Constitutions places a greater
limitation on the City' s ability to regulate non-commercial
signs as opposed to commercial signs. Reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions on signs, whether commercial
or non-commercial, have been permitted so long as the signs
do not control the content of non-commercial sign messages.
In a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Metro
Media vs. City of San Diego, the Court agreed, in effect, to
the following propositions:
1. A desire to promote environmental asthetics is a
sufficient basis or use of the police power to control
signs;
2 . If a municipality determines that a sign control
ordinance promotes traffic safety, it is not required to
offer proof of that fact in court;
3 . It is lawful to make a distinction between
on-premise and off-premise signs in an ordinance;
4. A sign control ordinance is not void simply
because it may put sign companies out of business;
5 . An ordinance is not unlawfully discriminatory
merely because it permits non-commercial and forbids
commercial messages on signs; and
6. An ordinance is not unlawfully overbroad simply
because it bans all off-premise commercial messages.
Recent cases also provide that it is proper for a city
to ban political signs on public rights-of-way. In
addition, it has recently been held that it is improper for
a city to require a permit fee to be paid prior to the
placement of a political sign.
Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Palm Desert Sign
Code.
Amendment to political- sign -regulations.
The political sign regulations in the Palm Desert
Municipal Code were originally enacted in 1975 and again in
� s
i
Memo to: PDPC .
From: D.S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 3
1977. The proposed amendments would eliminate the
requirement that the applicant for a political sign post a
$100 cash bond with the City to guarantee removal of
political signs. This section is deleted because of the
limitation referred to above that the implement of a fee is
improper with respect to political signs. The original
ordinance provided that each political sign should not
exceed five square feet in area. This is retained in the
new ordinance. The original ordinance provided that the
signs not be located closer together than 500 feet. The new
regulation would provide that the signs not be located
closer together than 50 feet. The old ordinance provided
that no political signs be allowed in any residential zone.
This is deleted in the new regulations. The old ordinance
provided that political signs not be nailed to trees, fence
posts, or fixed public utility poles and not be located in
the public right-of-way. This is retained in the new
regulations. The old ordinance provided that political
signs be removed ten ( 10) days after the election date or
the bond posted be forfeited. Further, it provided that
political signs not be posted earlier that 45 days prior to
the election. The new regulations provide that the
political signs be removed within 10 days after the election
and not be posted earlier than 45 days prior to the
election. The bond forfeiture provisions are removed and
the new regulations provide that the applicant be personally
responsible for the removal of the political signs. Both
the bld and the new regulations provided that no fee or
permit was required for the right to erect political signs
but that a map or sketch showing the location of the signs
be filed with the Director of Environmental Services . Both
the old and the new regulations provide that no signs be
permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or any other
movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five (5) inches by 20
inches in size.
The purpose of the amendments to the political sign
sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is to omit the
bond requirements which were found to be unconstitutional in
recent court rulings. The balance of . the changes appear to
be reasonable time, place and manner limitations.
Amendments to Commercial and Industrial Uses/Sign
Areas.
The changes to the commercial and industrial uses
appear simply to be changes in time, place and manner
limitations on commercial signs which are clearly permitted
under case law. It is proposed that it be made clear that
Memo to: PDPC
From: D. S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 4
25. 68.270 a, b, and c, specifically refer to commercial as
opposed to .non-commercial signs.
Special Event Signs.
Finally, with regard to special event signs, the
proposed changes appear to be reasonable time, place and
manner limitations and in fact grant additional latitude for
the placement of special event signs .
It does not appear at the present time that there are .
any sections of the City' s present sign ordinance which are
unconstitutional.
DSP/cr
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
DAVID ERWIN PALM SPRINGS OFFICE
J.JOHN ANDERHOLT 74-090 EL PASEO 960 EAST TAHOUITZ-MGCALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE BOX 769
MICHAEL J.ANDELSON SUITE 203
DOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA 92262
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE 619 566-2611
CHARLES M.ELLIS TELEP['HONE1,(619)322.2466
O JOHN LN RED
SUPPLE OY )))
CAL M£INTOSH all,��
BARBARA E.KRISTAL
WILLIAM K.HANLIN
B RIAN F.CAINE JAN 2 9 1985
.M.ADIA SAR.N£OLUKDM.NAMIC.UFORD
CeNAD4N Bwp.KDi ADY/Tf6D M CALIIOfl NIA.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMO CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: RAY DIAZ, CITY OF PALM DESERT
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: Januray 22, 1985
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE PALM DESERT POLITICAL SIGN
REGULATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
STUDY SESSION, JANUARY 15, 1985.
OUR FILE NO. 1040-0011
As recommended by the Planning Commission on January
15, 1985, at study session, the Palm Desert Planning
Commission recommends that Palm Desert Municipal Code
section 25 . 68. 620, political sign regulations, be deleted
and replaced with the following:
1125. 68. 620. Political Sign Regulations.
Applicants for political signs, as defined in
section 25. 68.020, shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Each sign shall not exceed five (5 )
square feet in area.
(b) The signs shall not be located closer
together thatn fifty (50) feet.
(c) Such signs shall not be located in the
public right-of-way.
(d) All political signs shall be removed
within ten ( 10) days after the election date,
except that in the case of a general
election, political signs shall not be
required to be removed between the primary
and general elections, but shall be removed
within ten (10) days after the general
election date. The applicant shall agree in
writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
(e) No political signs shall be posted
earlier than ninety (90) days prior to an
election.
(f) No fee or permit shall be required for
the right to erect political signs. Where
the sign is proposed to be placed on private
property, the applicant shall secure the
permission of the property owner. "
DSP/cr
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: RAY DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND PLANNING
COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: FRANK ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES DATE: JANUARY 16, 1985
DISCUSSION:
At the last Planning Commission Meeting a developer complained about not being
allowed to use off-site directional signs for subdivision projects. This particular
developer had been cited in the past and had advised the City Attorney he would
comply. The developer resumed placing the illegal off-site directional signs and
was ordered into court. ':
Section 25.68.590 of the codes for special purpose signs for land divisions allows
two on-site directional signs in addition to the signs advertising the land division
project. The section does not allow for off-site directional signs.
I think they are confused with Section 25.68.150 allowing off-site directional signs
on private property for open house when real estate in single-family zones is
offered for sale. by the homeowner or broker.
Section 25.68.090 signs on utility poles and in the public right-of-way are Pro-
hibited.
Over the last few years developers have hired the services of sign agents to erect
illegal off-site directional signs along the public right-of-way or placing portable
signs on trailer carriages at key intersections. The signs are usually erected on
Friday afternoons or replaced late Saturday after abatement by the Zoning 5 License
Officer. If they are allowed to remain, they detract from the aesthetics of the
community and can be a hazard to traffic in some cases. The local realtors have
complained about these off-site directional signs.
PROBLEM:
The Code Compliance Department provides code compliance six days a week by alter-
nating a man on a Tuesday through Saturday work week. The primary purpose is to
do field surveillance on Saturday for illegal home occupations in residential
districts, door-to-door solicitation and unlicensed persons operating without a
business license or permit. It is impossible to do so, when much of the time is
given to abatement of illegal signs and confrontation with sales agents.
P1.
'• PAGE 2
TO: RAY DIAZ
FROM: FRANK ALLEN
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1985
The abatement of off-site directional signs cost the City :-.in at least three -
1. Time of Zoning & License Officer to abate signs and attend City
Attorney's in-office hearing or be present for a court trail.
2. Cost for the services of the City Attorney which are in addition
to his contract of services agreement.
3. Business license tax revenue not collected from unlicensed
operators working Saturday. .
OPTIONS
There are three options the Planning Commission may' consider:
-. Option 1: Leave the ordinance as it is and the City Zoning & License
se : '
Officer continues to abate. �.._:•
Option 2: Amend-'-Section 25.68.590 to allow off-site directional signs on
private property with permission-. of the property owner, between
the period of Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. A cash bond
might be considered to insure removal of the signs after the
time has expired Sunday evening and not picked up prior to 8:00
a.m. Monday. This option may .not be received favorably by the
local realtors or other sectors of the business community.
Option 3: 'a) The Cities of Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage allow_ model
tourssigns for land subdivision. These signs are made, in-
stalled and maintained by William Paul Advertising Agency,
located in Santa Ana, California. . The cities will allow ,
the signs to be erected in public right-of-ways. The devel-
oper:!pays for the signs and the sign. company submits a re-
quest for a permit to the Planning Department and obtains
approval. for the locations.
b) "-I discussed the model tour signs concept with Cathedral City
and Rancho Mirage and find this to be working well. Please
note the pictures-_I took of locations where these signs are
installed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I re I.commend option number 3 as it is more attractive and can incorporate a City
. . 7:.ymotto such as used in the Cathedral City sign "A City In Perfect Balance". or .
i use the City logo:
- . _.. .. -
r III
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 18, 1985
Chairman Crites suggested that if exterior work was done in the future, some type
of screening would be added. Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and
asked the applicant to address the commission and asked him if he objected to the
duct work being painted.
MR. ANTHONY RICCIO, applicant, expressed no objection.
Chairman Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public testimony was closed.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the
findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1021, approving Conditional Use Permit 84-
12, subject to conditions. Carried 5-0.
E. Case No:ZO` A�CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the Municipal
Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning the regulation of signs.
Mr. Diaz addressed the commission by suggesting that the commission direct the
questions regarding political signs be addressed to the city attorney. .
Commissioner Downs wanted to know what the requirements were for state law
and what the city was requiring. Chairman Crites clarified this by asking if state
law was permissive.
Mr. Phillips replied that a new United States law states that a city may prohibit
political signs in public areas.
Commissioner Downs felt that the amendments should be changed to the Downs
Amendments.
Chairman Crites opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to
speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
Commissioner Erwood expressed concern regarding political signs in subsection E
and the 45 day time limit justification and that Mr. Diaz should have specific
standards for special event signs.
Commissioner Richards asked if the commission had the right to control the signs
that were located in Palm Desert. Mr. Phillips replied that the city cannot impose
on content or basically as content neutral as possible.
Mr. Diaz indicated that clarification was needed as to size.
Mr. Phillips also stated that it was improper to request a fee for political signs.
Commissioner Richards volunteered to head a special committee to review this
matter. He felt that the areas in the present sign ordinance in conflict with state
or constitutional law and political signs be studied.
Chairman Crites appointed the commission to sit as a committee with
Commissioner Richards as chairman for the Adhock Sign Ordinance Committee.
Mr. Phillips advised advertising the meeting by public notice.
Commissioner Richards suggested 12:00 on January 15, 1985, for the Ad Hock Sign
Ordinance Committee and requested a sign ordinance for each commissioner.
-4-
I
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 18, 1985
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue
this matter to the meeting of January 15, 1985, at 12:00 p.m.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. Report on status of conditions of approval for Foundation for the Retarded
of the Desert.
Mr. Diaz reported that the conditions of the previous approval had been
complied with.
IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
NONE
X. COMMENTS
A. Commissioner Downs suggested that better coverage for the sign ordinance
press release and stated that public imput was needed.
Commissioner Wood suggested placing a 3 x 5 advertisement.
Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to put a 3
x 5 advertisement in the paper. Carried 5-0.
Mr. Diaz indicated that if this is done, it would be better to continue this
matter to the first night meeting in February and at the January 15 meeting
meet with only the city attorney.
B. Mr. Diaz explained that the city council instructed staff to prepare an
environmental impact report on the Westar project. He explained the time
involved for this process and indicated that it would come to the commission
for discussion.
Chairman Crites felt that the city attorney present at the city council
meeting did not explain all options of the case. Mr. Diaz replied that the
city attorney preferred the environmental report over any other options.
Chairman Crites felt that discussion regarding the scope and quality of legal
advice to council was needed.
C. Mr. Diaz indicated places on the zoning map that were not consistent with
the general plan.
D. Commission discussed the need for a four-way stop at Plaza Way and El
Paseo. Mr. Cablay indicated that the matter had been before the traffic
committee and the decided that because of the traffic volume that a four-
way stop was not warranted.
Commission suggested that the matter be brought before the traffic
committee again.
Commission also discussed the traffic at McDonald's and and possibility of
having the ingress at Crocker Bank made two way.
X1. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adjourn
the meeting. Carried 5-0.
-5-
k
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Con rr ission
DATE: Decen ber 18, 1984
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Arc endn ent to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning
the regulation of signs.
APPLICANT: City of Pain Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
This art endn ent was initiated as a result of recent court rulings throughout
California which seriously in pacted the validity of the city's sign ordinance
as it related to the regulation of political signs. In this regard the city
attorney has prepared new political sign regulations which are in keeping
with the court rulings. _.
This is the first review of the sign ordinance since Septen ber 1981 and staff
felt it would be appropriate to review other sections of the ordinance at
this tine. These other arr endrr ents in son a cases are clarification of existing
sections, updating of the sign regulations in light of other code arc endn ents
and deletion of redundant sections.
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
A. As prepared by the city attorney the present section 620 dealing with
political signs would be deleted and replaced with the following:
1125 68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall con ply with the following requiredr ents:
a. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
b. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
c. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
d. All political signs shall be ren oved within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the rerroval
of the political signs.
e. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty-five days prior
to an election.
I. No fee or pern it shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environn ental services a n ap or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
g. No signs shall be perrr itted on trucks, autorr obiles, trailers, or any
other n ovable vehicles except for bun per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size. '
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.620 Political sign regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68mu shall con ply with the following requiren ents:
a. The applicant shall post a one hundred dollar cash bond with the
city to guarantee ren oval of the political signs.
b. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
c. The signs shall not be located closer together than five hundred
feet.
d. No political signs shall be allowed in any residential zone.
t
e. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
f. All political signs shall be rerr oved within ten days after the election
date or the bond posted shall be forfeited and the city shall use
whatever part of the bond rroney as is necessary for removal. Any
arrount of the bond rerraining shall be refunded upon request rrade
within ninety days after the election. No political signs will be
posted earlier than fortyfive days prior to an election.
g. The one hundred dollar bond requirerr ents in this section shall also
apply to signs located at cart paign or party headquarters.
h. No fee or pern it shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environn ental services a nap or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
i. The city shall establish a separate account to be entitled political
sign ren oval, for the purpose of holding and accounting for the cash
this account will
bond requirerr enis.of.this,section. Moneys frorr
• A posted'.' An Sur lus rt oney s fron
be used to ren ov_ signs illegally pose y p
this account rr ay be used to rert ove signs posted without a bond.
j. No, signs shall be pern itted on trucks, autorr obiles, trailers, or any
other rr ovable vehicles except for bun per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size. (Ord. 129
§4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A§25.38-17.06).
B. Ordinance No. 326 adopted February 26, 1983, changed the nan a of the
Design Review Board to Architectural Corr rr ission. It is proposed that
all references to the Design Review Board in the sign ordinance, Section
68 be deleted and replaced with Architectural Corr rr ission. This would
result in changes to subsections 320, 430, 440 and 480.
C. Section 25.68.270 night be considered the n ost irr portant section in the
ordinance in that it controls the size of the signs which nay be approved.
Unfortunately, section 68.270 as presently written does not accurately
reflect the way in which staff has consistently interpretted the size lirr it.
c
EXISTING SECTION:
25 68 270 Sign area -- Corr rr ercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
an�size shall be as approved by the design review process. Relative thereto,
the following sign areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which they
face;-ornbLisinesses which front only on a corr rr on use parking area
shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage,
unless the design review board deterrrines that the proposed size of
the sign is not in harrr ony with the design of the building. Such a
sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which its area
is deterrr fined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage, unless the design review board
deterrr ines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harp ony with
the design of the building. Such a sign n ust be located adjacent to
the right-of-way frorr which its area is deterrr ined.
C. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord..272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
12.01).
w
l
The problem is that subsection "c" appears to give businesses in excess
of 50 lineal feet of frontage all of what they are entitled to under subsection
"a" or "b" plus that which they are entitled to under subsection "c".
Staff has consistently interpretted this to rTean that the signs perm itted
under subsections "a" or "b" only apply to the first 50 feet of frontage.
Exam ple: A building with 200 feet of frontage located less than 100
feet frorr street.
Under present interpretation this building would be entitled to up to
100 square feet of signage (ie: 50 square feet for the first 50 lineal
feet plus 25 square feet for the next 50 lineal feet plus 25 square feet
for the last 100 lineal feet).
The way section 68.270 is written the sign size could be interpretted
to allow as m uch as 250 square feet (ie: 200 feet for 200 feet of building
plus the additional 50 square feet perry fitted under subsection "c").
PROPOSED SECTION 68.270
25 68 270 Sign area -- Commercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and 'size shall be as approved by the architectural. con mission:, Relative .
thereto, the following sign• areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a core rr on use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of
frontage to a rr axirr urr of 50 square feet, unless the architectural
corrrrission deterrrines that the proposed size of the sign is not in
harry ony with the design of the building. Such a sign rT ust be located
adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which its area is deterrrined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet frorr a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a rr axirr urr of 75 square
feet unless the architectural corn mission deterrrines that the proposed
size of the sign is not in harry ony with the design of the building.
Such a sign rr ust be located adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which
its area is deterrr fined.
c. A single business having leneal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272 (part),
1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit
A §25.38- 12.01).
D. Section 68.350 presently perrr its the Director of Environrr ental Services
to approve tern porary banners of up to 30 square feet for a period not
to exceed 30 days per year.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the Director of Environ-
m ental Services, a business m ay erect one terT porary sign, rT ounted on
a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, prorr otions or sales.
On nurr erous occasions banners for longer than 30 days have been requested _
and sour a instances have been perrr itted pursuant to special city council
dispensation. Therefore, it is proposed that this action be codified by adding
to section 68.350 the following:
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days rr ay only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign may be used."
in. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reco_ tr rr ends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No.
' Resolution of the Planning Corrmission of the City
of Palrr Desert recorr rc ending approval to the city
Council of certain art endrT ents to the n unicipal code
(section 2168 - Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Legal Notice
Prepared by
Approved by
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,
A 11 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE 'CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 94-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the
City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of 1984, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RA MON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.69.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125.68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
C. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the removal
of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty. five. days .prior .
to an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environmental services a map or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
G. No signs shall be permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or
any other movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches
in size."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on
the second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent
of the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story build-
ings by the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98
§1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new
developments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site
plan review procedure. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this
chapter shall.be subject to the approval of the architectural commission
process. In approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing
body shall utilize the following review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of subs-
tantial trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health,
safety, and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the isgn is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and
other signs in the area.
J
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its
visual elements (lettering, works, figures, colors, decorative motifs,
spacing and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions
prevailing where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual character-
istics of the surrounding area so as not to detract form or cause
depreciation of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTI`0140: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as
approved by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270' of the Code of 'the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25 68 270 Sign area -- Commercial and Industrial uses. Sign design,
location and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission.
Relative thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
A. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot
of frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural
commission determines that the proposed size of the sign is not
in harmony with the design of the building. Such a sign must be
located adjacent to the right-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public
right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one-half
square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design
of the building. Such a sign must be lcoated adjacent to the right-
of-way from which its area is determined.
C. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or B of
this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272
(part), 1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.351 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of
environmental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted
on a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or
sales. The director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending
upon the type of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a
period not to exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special
event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign may be displayed."
73-510 FRED WARINO DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
November 29, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE. ZOA 84-3
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the municipal code
Chapter 25.68 concerning the regulation of signs, a class 5 categorical exemption
for the purposes of CEQA.
SAID public hearing will be held Tuesday, December 18, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring
Drive Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons
are invited to attend and be heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 7, 1994
PROOF OF PUS ICATION This space Is for County Clerk'sFiling Stamp
(2015.5 C.C.r'.)
a,
in
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, _
County of Riverside > ? C 1
I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM�DESERT �t
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over
the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of
or interested in the above entitled matter. I CASE 7.OA 84-3
am the principal clerk of the printer of the
............RE.$Fr)?7 .POST......................
ITY MPA M DESER
..................................................... LEOAe, OTICE
a newspaper of general circulation, printed CASE ZOA 11"
P OTICE S ERES IV N
P+pl a
f e
Id
and Bi-weekl ePa Dew, P
published ..................�:.............. oo o�cn3sfaeen
n unicgal oa e 2 6B
ncer In e e a
In the City of ...P��tn„Desert a rc nl
..............
e e ICEO'
County of Riverside, and which news- SAiD W an nea
paper has been adjudged a newspaper eesaa
of general circulation by the Superior se D
Court of the County of Riverside, State of I
tl Rla.. i ores, r'
M Ib�l e a aiq be peers
California, under thedaieof„ O/( ., 19 . 6Q AMON'A.D
trots
aim
��9�� Dose
Case Number 83.65R .....; that the not Ice, 1. 3. DeLj��9Baap
of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpareil), has
been published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,
to-wit: 12/7
all in the year 19..9A.
I certify (or declare) under penalty of DEC 19 1984
perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. ENVIRONMENTAL SEtVIiGS
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Dated at......Palm Desert
7 .........
tti Der .
California,this..........day of......... 1984.
' z
tn Lure
Free CeFln 01111116 tiers form mer M stand Irsml
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE
BUREAU, INC.
Legal Advertising Clearing House
120 West Second St., Los Angeles, Calif. 9oo12
Telephone: (213) 625.2541
nluo reount Ot NM R AL►reef el puttleAllat
when erderine this form.
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
DAVID J.ERWIN A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
PALM SPRINGS OFFICE
J.JOHN ANDERHOLT 74-090 EL PASEO - 960 EAST TAHOUITZ-M£CALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE BOX 789
MICHAEL J.ANDELSON SUITE 203
DOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA 92262
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE(519)568-2611 I
CHARLES M.ELLIS TELEPHONE-� 618 322-2966
LANTSON E.ELDRED
CAL M£INTOSH
9ARBARA E.KRtS.HANLITAL
BRIANWILLIAM CAINEANLIN
B*MEMBER
F.C N 2 9 1985
MEMBER BAR,M COLUTADMBTEDINI CALIFORNIA.
A DAANN �f
CAHA DIPN BAR.NOT ADMIT}ED IN CA4 FO RNIA.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMO CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: RAY DIAZ, CITY OF PALM DESERT
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DATE : Januray 22, 1985
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE PALM DESERT POLITICAL SIGN
REGULATIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
STUDY SESSION, JANUARY 15, 1985.
OUR FILE NO. 1040-0011
As recommended by the Planning Commission on January
15, 1985, at study session, the Palm Desert Planning
Commission recommends that Palm Desert Municipal Code
section 25. 68. 620, political sign regulations, be deleted
and replaced with the following:
"25 . 68. 620. Political Sign Regulations.
Applicants for political signs, as defined in
section 25. 68.020, shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Each sign shall not exceed five (5)
square feet in area.
(b) The signs shall not be located closer
together thatn fifty (50) feet.
(c) Such signs shall not be located in the
public right-of-way.
(d) All political signs shall be removed
within ten ( 10) days after the election date,
except that in the case of a general
election, political signs shall not be
required to be removed between the primary
and general elections, but shall be removed
f `
within ten ( 10) days after the general
election date. The applicant shall agree in
writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
(e) No political signs shall be posted
earlier than ninety (90) days prior to an
election.
(f) No fee or permit shall be required for
the right to erect political signs. Where
the sign is proposed to be placed on private
property, the applicant shall secure the
permission of the property owner. "
DSP/cr
w
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATI '
//j(�'� 1PALM SPPINGS:OFFICE
OAVIO J.ERWIN `d ,! " '
J.JOHN ANOERHOLT 7a-O SO EL PAS EO \J ggO-FAST-TAM OUITZ-MGCALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE BOX 789 SUITE 203
MICHAEL J.ANOELSON r p M Rljl�i S.CAUFOR NIA 92262
OOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 N qL 4- � � —
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE(619)568-2611 TELEPMONE(619)322-2466
C HARLES M.ELLIS V
LANTSON E.ELOREO UJVIRONME-lTsiRRT�mGEb�.K.ir rALTON.CPA
JOHN L.SUPPLE j1^/ r I^ALVI ✓ff&Eji1]9TRATOR
CAL M£INTOSH ,1• ��
9nogARA E.NPISTAL
WILLIAM N.HANLIN•
.MCMBER BRITISM COWMBIA.MAMITODA AND
GNADIAN BAR.NOT^OMITTED IN CALIFORNIA.
MEMO
TO: PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: January 10, 1985
RE : CITY SIGN ORDINANCE
On December 18, 1984, the Planning Commission requested
the City Attorney' s opinion with respect to the following:
1. Legality of the City' s sign ordinance;
2 . The source of the City' s power to regulate signs;
. 3 . The purpose for the recommended changes in the
City' s sign ordinance, especially with regard to
political signs.
RESPONSE
Source of Palm Desert' s Power to Regulate Signs.
Government Code section 65850(b) provides that the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert may by ordinance regulate
signs and billboards. In addition, the City' s police power
to protect the public health, safety and welfare has been
used as a basis to uphold the City' s sign regulations. In
addition, Government Code section 38774 provides that the
legislative body may regulate the exhibition posting Or
carrying of banners, placards, posters, cards, pictures,
signs or advertisements in or on the street or on or upon
buildings, fences, billboards or other structures; or on
upon any pole, in any sidewalk, alley, street lane, court,
park or. other public place. In addition, pursuant to
Government Code section 38774(b) , the City may regulate the
suspension of banners, flags, signs, advertisements,
posters, pictures or cards across or over any sidewalk,
alley, street lane, court, park or other public place or
Memo to: PI`
From: D.S . ._.illips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 2
such suspension from £ences, ' poles, houses or other
structures.
Limitations on the City' s Ability to Regulate Signs and
Outdoor Advertising.
As a general rule, the First Amendment of the United
States and California Constitutions places a greater
limitation on the City' s ability to regulate non-commercial
signs as opposed to commercial signs. Reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions on signs, whether commercial
or non-commercial, have been permitted so long as the signs
do not control the content of nor.-commercial sign messages.
In a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Metro
Media vs . City of San Diego, the Court agreed, in effect, to
the following propositions:
1. A desire to promote environmental asthetics is a
sufficient basis or use of the police power to control
signs;
2 . If a municipality determines that a sign control
ordinance promotes traffic safety, it is not required to
offer proof of that fact in court;
3 . It is lawful to make a distinction between
on-premise and off-premise signs in an ordinance;
4. A sign control ordinance is not void simply
because it may put sign companies out of business;
5 . An ordinance is not unlawfully discriminatory
merely because it permits non-commercial and forbids
commercial messages on signs; and
6. An ordinance is not unlawfully overbroad simply
because it bans all off-premise commercial messages.
Recent cases also provide that it is proper for a city
to ban political signs on public rights-of-way. In
addition, it has recently been held that it is improper for
a city to require a permit fee to be paid prior to the
placement of a political sign.
Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Palm Desert Sign
Code.
Amendment to political sign regulations .
The political sign regulations in the Palm Desert
Municipal Code were originally enacted in 1975 and again in
Memo to: Pr
From: D. S. __fillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 3
1977 . The proposed amendments would eliminate the
requirement that the applicant for a political sign post a
$100 cash bond with the City to guarantee removal of
political signs. This section is deleted because of the
limitation referred to above that the implement of a fee is
improper with respect to political signs. The original
ordinance provided that each political sign should not
exceed five square feet in area. This is retained in the
new ordinance. The original ordinance provided that the
signs not be located closer together than 500 feet. The new
regulation would provide that the signs not be located
closer together than 50 feet. The old ordinance provided
that no political signs be allowed in any residential zone .
This is deleted in the new regulations. The old ordinance
provided that political signs not be nailed to trees, fence
posts, or fixed public utility poles and not be located in
the public right-of-way. This is retained in the new
regulations. The old ordinance provided that political
signs be removed ten ( 10) days after the election date or
the bond posted be forfeited. Further, it provided that
political signs not be posted earlier that 45 days prior to
the election. The new regulations provide that the
political signs be removed within 10 days after the election
and not be posted earlier than 45 days prior to the
election. The bond forfeiture provisions are removed and
the new regulations provide that the applicant be personally
responsible for the removal of the political signs. Both
the Old and the new regulations provided that no fee or
permit was required for the right to erect political signs
but that a map or sketch showing the location of the signs
be filed with the Director of Environmental Services. Both
the old and the new regulations provide that no signs be
permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or any other
movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five (5 ) inches by 20
inches in size.
The purpose of the amendments to the political sign
sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is to omit the
bond requirements which were found to be unconstitutional in
recent court rulings. The balance of the changes appear to
be reasonable time, place and manner limitations.
Amendments to Commercial and Industrial Uses/Sign
Areas.
The changes to the commercial and industrial uses
appear simply to be changes in time, place and manner
limitations on commercial signs which are clearly permitted
under case law. It is proposed that it be made clear that
Memo to: T
r From: D. S. _iiillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 4
25 . 68.270 a, b, and c, specifically refer to commercial as
opposed to non-commercial signs.
Special Event Signs.
Finally, with regard to special event signs, the
proposed changes appear to be reasonable time, place and
manner limitations and in fact grant additional latitude for
the placement of special event signs .
It does not appear at the present time that there are .
any sections of the City' s present sign ordinance which are
unconstitutional .
DSP/cr
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: RAY DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND PLANNING
COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: FRANK ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES DATE: JANUARY 16, 1985
DISCUSSION:
At the last Planning Commission Meeting a developer complained about not being
allowed to use off-site directional signs for subdivision projects. This particular
developer had been cited in the past and had advised the City Attorney he would
comply. The developer resumed placing the illegal off-site directional signs and
was ordered into court. .
Section 25.68.590 of the codes for special purpose signs for land divisions allows
two on-site directional signs in addition to the signs advertising the land division
project. The section does not allow for off-site directional signs.
I think they are confused with Section 25.68.150 allowing off-site directional signs
on private property for open house when real estate in single-family zones is
offered for sale. by the homeowner or broker.
Section 25.68.090 signs on utility poles and in the public right-of-way are pro-
hibited.
Over the last few years developers have hired the services of sign agents to erect
illegal off-site directional signs along the public right-of-way or placing portable
signs on trailer carriages at key intersections. The signs are usually erected on
Friday afternoons or replaced late Saturday after abatement by the Zoning & License
Officer. If they are allowed to remain, they detract from the aesthetics of the
community and can be a hazard to traffic in some cases. The local realtors have
complained about these off-site directional signs.
PROBLEM:
The Code Compliance Department provides code compliance six days a week by alter-
nating a man on a Tuesday through Saturday work week. The primary purpose is to
do field surveillance on Saturday for illegal home occupations in residential
districts, door-to-door solicitation and unlicensed persons operating without a
business license or permit. It is impossible to do so, when much of the time is
given to abatement of illegal signs and confrontation with sales agents.
PAGE 2
TO: RAY DIAZ
FROM: FRANK ALLEN
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES _
DATE: . JANUARY 16, 1985
The abatement of off-site directional signs cost the City .in at least' three
1. Time of Zoning & License Officer to abate signs and attend City
Attorney's in-office hearing or be present for a court trail.
2. Cost for the services of the City Attorney which are in addition
to his contract of services agreement.
3. Business license tax revenue not collected from unlicensed
operators working Saturday. .
OPTIONS
There are three options the Planning Commission may consider:
a Option 1: Leave the ordinance as it is and the City Zoning & License
Officer continues to abate.
Option 2: Amend_Section 25.68.590 to allow off-site directional signs on
private property with permission � of the property owner, between
the period of Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. A cash bond
might be considered to insure removal of the signs after the
time has expired Sunday evening and not picked up prior to 8:00
i a.m. Monday. This option may not be received favorably by the
local realtors or other sectors of the business community.
Option 3: a) The Cities of Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage allow-• model
-= tourssigns for land subdivision. These signs are made, in-
stalled and maintained by William Paul Advertising Agency,
j located in Santa Ana, California. The cities will allow
k the signs to be erected in public right-of-ways. The devel
oper.-pays for the signs and the sign company submits a re-
quest for a permit to the Planning Department and obtains
approval for the locations.
b) " I discussed the model tour signs concept with Cathedral City
and Rancho Mirage and find this to be working well. Please
note the pictures-I took of locations where these signs are
installed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend option number 3Tas ^it is more attractive and can incorporate a City
motto such as used in the Cathedral City sign "A City In Perfect Balance" or
use the City logo: ;
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 5, 1985 continued from December 18, 1984 and
January 15, 1985.
CASE NO: ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.68, concerning
regulation of signs.
I. BACKGROUND:
This proposed amendment to the sign ordinance was before the planning
commission at its December 18, 1984 meeting when commission requested
clarification by the city attorney of certain items relating to political
signs. The city attorney's memo dated January 10, 1985 was reviewed by
commission at its January 15, 1985 meeting. At the meeting of January
15, 1985 commission arrived at a concensus and directed the city attorney
to prepare the appropriate language for the code amendment.
In addition commission directed_that in the amendment to section 68.270
the word "commercial" should be inserted prior to the word "business" in
each subsection.
Finally, at the public hearing of January 15, 1985 a gentleman spoke and
requested that commission review the matter of off site directional signs
for housing developments. Commission indicated that this item would be
discussed further arthe February 5, 1985 hearing.
II. ANALYSIS:
The necessary changes have been incorporated and are included in the draft
resolution attached. Should commission decide to further amend the sign
ordinance based on information submitted at the Fubruary 5, 1985 hearing
then the matter may have to be referred back to staff for preparation.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No.
"A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert recommending approval to the City Coundil
of certain amendments to the municipal code (section 25.68 -Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution (as revised)
2. Legal Notice
3. City Attorney's report of.January 10, 1985.
4. City Attorney's report of January 22, 1985.
5. Director of Code Compliance memo dated January 16, 1985.
Prepaned by
Approved by
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Calif-
ornia, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing
which was continued to a special public hearing held January 15, 1985 and to a
regular public hearing held February 5, 1985 to consider amendments to Section
25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City
of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearings upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city
council approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this _ day of 1984, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.68.620. Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as defined
in section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five (5) square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty (50) feet.
C. Such signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election
date, except that in the case of a general election, political signs shall
not be required to be removed between the primary and general elections,
but shall be removed within ten (10) days after the general election date.
The applicant shall agree in writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety (90) days prior to
an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political signs.
Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant
shall secure the permission of the property owner."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on the
second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent of
the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story buildings by
the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part),
1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new devel-
opments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site plan review
procedure. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this chapter
shall be subject to the approval of the architectural .commission process. In
approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing body shall utilize
the following review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of substantial
trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety
and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and other
signs in the area.
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual
elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing
and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing
where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual characteristics
of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause deprecia-
tion of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION 5: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as approved
by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palim Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sign Area -- Commercial and Industrial Uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission. Relative thereto,
the fbllowing sign areas shall apply:
A. Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way
which they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of front-
age to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural commission
determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with
the design of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to
the right-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Commercial businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a
public right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one
half square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design of the
building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way
from which its area is determined.
C. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way
in excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or
B of this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet, (Ord. 272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.01).
SECTION 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs: With the approval of the director of environ-
mental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall
facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales. The
director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the
type of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a period not to
exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special event signs constitute
a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be
permitted pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such
approval which shall specify the period during which the sign may
be displayed."
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
December 21, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
Proposed Amendments to Sign Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a meeting, open to the public, will be held by the
committee of the whole of the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider certain
amendments to the sign ordinance (including revisions as they relate to political signs).
SAID public meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 1985, at 12:00 noon, at the Palm
Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 28, 1994, and
January 4, 1984
t
1;
A
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATI tile'} ;~HALM SPRINGS OFFICE
DAVID J.ERWIN '•
J.JOHN ANDERHOLT 74�090 EL PAS EO .� �Fl60-BASTITATIOUITY-AMSCALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE 13OX 789 SUITE 203
MICNAEL J.ANOELSON p LM SV
(RITyLS,CALIFORNIA 92262
DOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 J N 14 (��• —
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE(619)568-2611 TELEPHONE(619)322-2466
CHARLES M.ELLIS
LANTSON E.ELDRED EX^IVIROtIMEPiTi�&P& eilrr!aLTON.CPA
JOHN L.SUPPLE q PALM 6@W
CAL MCINTOSH ulTi �1 FI�TRATOR
BARBARA E.NRISTAL
WILLIAM K.HANLIN-
.MEMBER BRITIBM COW MBIF,NAMITBBA ANB
CAMAOMN B/.R.MBT ABMITiCB IN CA4lFORXIA.
MEMO
TO: PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DOUGLAS S . PHILLIPS, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: January 10, 1985
RE: CITY SIGN ORDINANCE
On December 18, 1984, the Planning Commission requested
the City Attorney' s opinion with respect to the following:
1. Legality of the City' s sign ordinance;
2 . The source of the City' s power to regulate signs;
. 3 . The purpose for the recommended changes in the
City' s sign ordinance, especially with regard to
political signs.
RESPONSE
Source of Palm Desert' s Power to Regulate Sims.
Government Code section 65850(b) provides that the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert may by ordinance regulate
signs and billboards. In addition, the City' s police power
to protect the . public health, safety and welfare has been
used as a basis to uphold the City' s sign regulations . In
addition, Government Code section 38774 provides that the
legislative body may regulate the exhibition posting or
carrying of banners, placards, posters, cards, picture
signs or advertisements in or on the street or on or upon
buildings, fences, billboards or other structures; or on
upon any pole, in any sidewalk, alley, street lane, court,
park or. other public place. In addition, pursuant to
Government Code section 38774(b) , the City may regulate the
suspension of banners, flags, signs, advertisements,
posters, pictures or cards across or over any sidewalk,
alley, street lane, court, park or other public place or
Memo to: PDPC - •
From: D. S. Phillips
Re : Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 2
such suspension from fences, - poles, houses or other
structures.
Limitations on the City' s Ability to Regulate Signs and
Outdoor Advertising.
As a general rule, the First Amendment of the United
States and California Constitutions places a greater
limitation on the City' s ability to regulate non-commercial
signs as opposed to commercial signs. Reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions on signs, whether commercial
or non-commercial, have been permitted so long as the signs
do not control the content of non-commercial sign messages.
In a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Metro
Media vs. City of San Diego, the Court agreed, in effect, to
the following propositions:
1. A desire to promote environmental asthetics is a
sufficient basis or use of the police power to control
signs;
2. If a municipality determines that a sign control
ordinance promotes traffic safety, it is not required to
offer proof of that fact in court;
3 . It is lawful to make a distinction between
on-premise and off-premise signs in an ordinance;
4. A sign control ordinance is not void simply
because it may put sign companies out of business;
5 . An ordinance is not unlawfully discriminatory
merely because it permits non-commercial and forbids
commercial messages on signs; and
6. An ordinance is not unlawfully overbroad simply
because it bans all off-premise commercial messages.
Recent cases also provide that it is proper for a city
to ban political signs on public rights-of-way. In
addition, it has recently been held that it is improper for
a city to require a permit fee to be paid prior to the
placement of a political sign.
Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Palm Desert Sign
Code.
Amendment to political sign regulations.
The political sign regulations in the Palm Desert
Municipal Code were originally enacted in 1975 and again in
{
Memo to: PDPC
From: D. S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985 -
Page 3
1977. The proposed amendments would eliminate the
requirement that the applicant for a political sign post a
$100 cash bond with the City to guarantee removal of
political signs. This section is deleted because of the
limitation referred to above that the implement of a fee is
improper with respect to political signs. The original
ordinance provided that each political sign should not
exceed five square feet in area. This is retained in the .
new ordinance. The original ordinance provided that the
signs not be located closer together than 500 feet. The new
regulation would provide that the signs not be located
closer together than 50 feet. The old ordinance provided
that no political signs be allowed in any residential zone.
This is deleted in the new regulations. The old ordinance
provided that political signs not be nailed to trees, fence
posts, or fixed public utility poles and not be located in
the public right-of-way. This is retained in the new
regulations. The old ordinance provided that political
signs be removed ten ( 10) days after the election date or
the bond posted be forfeited. Further, it provided that
political signs not be posted earlier that 45 days prior to
the election. The new regulations provide that the
political signs be removed within 10 days after the election
and not be posted earlier than 45 days prior to the
election. The bond forfeiture provisions are removed and
the new regulations provide that the applicant be personally
responsible for the removal of the political signs . Both
the old and the new regulations provided that no fee or
permit was required for the right to erect political signs
but that a map or sketch showing the location of the signs
be filed with the Director of Environmental Services. Both
the old and the new regulations provide that no signs be
permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or any other
movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five (5 ) inches by 20
inches in size.
The purpose of the amendments to the political sign
sections of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is to omit the
bond requirements which were found to be unconstitutional in
recent court rulings. The balance of the changes appear to
be reasonable time, place and manner limitations.
Amendments to Commercial and Industrial Uses/Sign
Areas.
The changes to the commercial and industrial uses
appear simply to be changes in time, place and manner
limitations on commercial signs which are clearly permitted
under case law. It is proposed that it be made clear that
i
Memo to: PDPC
From: D.S. Phillips
Re: Signs
January 10, 1985
Page 4
25 . 68.270 a, b, and c, specifically refer to commercial as
opposed to . non-commercial signs.
Special Event Signs.
Finally, with regard to special event signs, the
proposed changes appear to be reasonable time, place and
manner limitations and in fact grant additional latitude for
the placement of special event signs.
It does not appear at the present time that there are .
any sections of the City' s present sign ordinance which are
unconstitutional.
DSP/cr
d.
- 4 ;
l
r
f
,
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
DAVID J.ERWIN PALM SPRINGS OFFICE
J.JOHN ANDERHOLT - 74-090 EL PASEO 960 EAST TAHQUIT2-MSCALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE BOX 789
MICHAEL J.ANDELSON SUITE 203
DOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA 92262
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE(619)568-2611
CHARLES M.ELLI5 ` TELEPHONE(619)322.2466
LANTSON E.ELDRED
Lei
JOHN L.SUPPLE
CAL MSINTOSH M � I
BARBARA E.KRISTAL
WILLIAM K.HAMLIN♦
BRIAN F. CAINE n )���
!MEMBER BRITISH COLUMBIA,MANITOBA AND J f�'`I
CANADIAN BAR.NOT ADMITTEO IN CALIFORNIA.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MEMO CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: RAY DIAZ, CITY OF PALM DESERT
FROM: DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: Januray 22, 1985
RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE PALM DESERT POLITICAL SIGN
REGULATIONS RECOMMENDED BY .THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
STUDY SESSION, JANUARY 15, 1985 .
OUR FILE NO. 1040-0011
As recommended by the Planning Commission on January
15, 1985, at study session, the Palm Desert Planning
Commission recommends that Palm Desert Municipal Code
section 25 . 68. 620 political sign regulations, be deleted
and replaced with the following:
1125. 68. 620. Political Sign Regulations.
Applicants for political signs, as defined in
section 25. 68. 020, shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Each sign shall not exceed five (5)
square feet in area.
(b) The signs shall not be located closer
together thatn fifty (50) feet.
(c) Such signs shall not be located in the
public right-of-way.
(d) All political signs shall be removed
within ten ( 10) days after the election date,
except that in the case of a general
election, political signs shall not be
required to be removed between the primary
and general elections, but shall be removed
F,
within ten ( 10) days after the general
election date. The applicant shall agree in
writing to be personally responsible for the
removal of the political signs.
(e) No political signs shall be posted
earlier than ninety (90) days prior to an
election.
(f) No fee or permit shall be required for
the right to erect political signs. Where
the sign is proposed to be placed on private
property, the applicant shall secure the
permission of the property owner. "
DSP/cr
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: RAY DIAZ, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND PLANNING
COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: FRANK ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES DATE: JANUARY 16, 1985
DISCUSSION:
At the last Planning Commission Meeting a developer complained about not being
allowed to use off-site directional signs for subdivision projects. This particular
developer had been cited in the past and had advised the City Attorney he would
comply. The developer resumed placing the illegal off-site directional signs and
was' ordered into'court.'-, ',_.
Section 25.68.590 of the codes for special purpose signs for land divisions allows
two on-site directional signs in addition to the signs advertising the land division
project. The section does not allow for off-site directional signs.
I think they are confused with Section 25.68.150 allowing off-site directional signs
on private Property for open house when real estate in single-family zones is
offered for sale by the homeowner or broker.
in the publ
ic right-of-way are Pro-
hibited.
25.68.090 signs on utility riles and r S Y
Over the last few years developers have hired the services of sign agents to erect
illegal off-site directional signs along the public right-of-way or placing portable
signs on trailer carriages at key intersections. The signs are usually erected on
Friday afternoons or replaced late Saturday after abatement by the Zoning & License
Officer. If they are allowed to remain, they detract from the aesthetics of the
community and can be a hazard to traffic in some cases. The local realtors have ,
complained about these off-site directional signs.
PROBLEM:
The Code Compliance Department provides code compliance six days a week by alter-
nating a man on a Tuesday through Saturday work week. The primary purpose is to
do field surveillance on Saturday for illegal home occupations in residential
districts, door-to-door solicitation and unlicensed persons operating without a
business license or permit. It is impossible to do so, when much of the time is
given to abatement of illegal signs and confrontation with sales agents.
r
1
1 '
is
fr
PAGE 2
TO: RAY DIAZ
FROM: FRANK ALLEN
SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION SALES
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1985
The abatement of .off-site directional signs cost the City '.in at least three
ways
U
1. Time of Zoning & License Officer to abate signs and attend City
Attorney's in-office hearing or be present for a court trail.
2. Cost for the services of the City Attorney which are in addition
to his contract of services agreement.
3. Business license tax revenue not collected from unlicensed
operators working Saturday. .
OPTIONS
;
: There are three options the Planning. Commission may consider:
Option 1. Leave the ordinance as it is and the City Zoning & License y;
Officer continues to abate. a
Option 2: Amend'Section 25.68.590 to allow off-site directional signs on
private property with permission . of the property owner, between
the period of Friday afternoon and Sunday evening. A cash bond
might be considered to insure removal of the signs after the
time has expired Sunday evening and not picked up prior to 8:00
a.m. Monday. This option .may .not be received favorably by the
local realtors or other sectors of the business community.
Option 3: 'a) The Cities of Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage allow. model
tourssigns for land subdivision. ' These signs are made, in- '
stalled and maintained by William Paul Advertising Agency,
located in Santa Ana, California. . The cities will allow ;
in public right-of-ways. The devel
the signs to be erected
. ..'. oper:,pays for the signs and the 'sign. company submits a re-
quest for a permit to the Planning Department and obtains
approval for the locations.
b) I discussed the model tour signs concept with Cathedral City
and Rancho Mirage and find this to be working well. Please
note the pictures: I took of locations where these signs are
installed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
—
I .recommend option number 3 as it is more attractive and can incorporate a Cityr
.`'motto such as used in the Cathedral City sign "A City.In Perfect Balance" or ,
,,_ & . =:use .the City .logo:
1
7.
A.
r f�
1 I'
r r
a
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Corr rr ission
DATE: Decerr ber 18, 1984
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Arr endrT ent to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning
the regulation of signs.
APPLICANT: City of PalrT Desert
1. BACKGROUND:
This arr endrrent was initiated as a result of recent court rulings throughout
California which seriously in pacted the validity of the city's sign ordinance
as it related to the regulation of political signs. In this regard the city
attorney has prepared new political sign regulations which are in keeping
with the court rulings
This is the first review of the sign ordinance since Septerr ber 1981 and staff
felt it would be appropriate to review other sections of the ordinance at
this tirr e. These other arc endrr ents in sorr a cases are clarification of existing
sections, updating of the sign regulations in light of other code arr endrr ents
and deletion of redundant sections.
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
A. As prepared by the city attorney the present section 620 dealing with
political signs would be deleted and replaced with the following:
1125.68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall-Corr ply with the following requirerr ents:
✓ a. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
b. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
c. Such signs shall not be naifet-t8-trees�fence-posts;or-of-f4x-ed-to-
Q publie�tifit t y-poles-and-shall-noe located in the public right-of-
way. 9A 2�v�✓ ����
�. All political U v %
s signs shall be rercoved within ten days after the election
40 date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the rem oval
Qr j� of the political signs. ,�,r �u lw 1r21 ^ Q� �c�i� �(
' /� e. No political signs shall be posted earlier than #duel days prior
to an election. ?0
r�J f. No fep or pep-it-s all be required or the righ o erec apolitical
signs but t appli ant, or agen , shall fi with the &actor /
of envrro ental s rvices rap or sketch or otherwise 2qu el-yf
e d.
loca e ne_a the sins-w:rl be rec e�
�No signs spat! e �
perrc fitted on trucks, autorr o� s, tr filers, or any
of er rr vable v hicles c�t for�urr per stickers or other eauivaleht
sti k snot exceeding-five inches by j veRty inches in size."
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.620 Political sign regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall Corr ply with the following requiredT ents:
a. The applicant shall post a one hundred dollar cash bond with the
city to guarantee rerr oval of the political signs.
b. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
c. The signs shall not be located closer together than five hundred
feet.
d. No political signs shall be allowed in any residential zone.
e. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
f. All political signs shall be removed within ten days after the election
date or the bond posted shall be forfeited and the city shall use
whatever part of the bond money as is necessary for rerr oval. Any
arc ount of the bond ren aining shall be refunded upon request made
within ninety days after the election. No political signs will be
posted earlier than fortyfive days prior to an election.
g. The one hundred dollar bond requirements in this section shall also
apply to signs located at campaign or party headquarters.
h. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environmental services a nap or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
1. The city shall establish a separate account to be entitled political
sign rem oval, for the purpose of holding and accounting for the cash
bond requirements of this section. Moneys from this account will
be used to remove signs illegally posted. Any surplus moneys from
this account may be used to remove signs posted without a bond.
j. No,isigns shall be perm itted on trucks, autom obiles, trailers, or any
other m ovable vehicles except for bum per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size. (Ord. 129
§4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A§25.38-17.06).
B. Ordinance No. 326 adopted February 26, 1983, changed the nacre of the
Design Review Board to Architectural Corr m ission. It is proposed that
all references to the Design Review Board in the sign ordinance, Section
68 be deleted and replaced with Architectural Con m ission. This would
result in changes to subsections 320, 430, 440 and 480.
C. Section 25.68.270 might be considered the rrost important section in the
ordinance in that it controls the size of the signs which rr ay be approved.
Unfortunately, section 68.270 as presently written does not accurately
reflect the way in which staff has consistently interpretted the size limit.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.270 Sign area -- Con m ercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and , size shall be as approved by the design review process. Relative thereto,
the following sign areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one, hundred feet of a public right-of-way which they
face; ornbdsinesses which front only on a corn rron use parking area
shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage,
unless the design review board determines that the proposed size of
the sign is not in harm ony with the design of the building. Such a
sign nwatibe located adjacent to the right-of-way from which .its area
is determined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public right-
of-way, which they face, .shall be entitled to one and aye half square
foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage, unless the design review board
determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with
the design of the building. Such a sign must be located adjacent to
the right-of-way from which its area is deterrr fined.
c. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord..272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
12.01).
I __
a _
Jl
S
The problerr is that subsection "c" appears to give businesses in excess
of 50 lineal feet of frontage all of what they are entitled to under subsection
"a" or "b" plus that which they are entitled to under subsection "c".
Staff has consistently interpretted this to rr can that the signs Perry itted
under subsections "a" or "b" only apply to the first 50 feet of frontage.
Exarr ple: A building with 200 feet of frontage located less than 100
feet frorr street.
Under present interpretation this building would be entitled to up to
100 square feet of signage (ie: 50 square feet for the first 50 lineal
feet plus 25 square feet for the next 50 lineal feet plus 25 square feet
for the last 100 lineal feet).
The way section 68.270 is written the sign size could be interpretted
to allow as rr uch as 250 square feet (fie: 200 feet for 200 feet of building
plus the additional 50 square feet perrr fitted under subsection "c").
PROPOSED SECTION 68.270
25.68.270 Sign area -- Corr rr ercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the architectural corr rrission. Relative
thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
a Buusiinnesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a corr rron use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of
frontage to a rr axirr urr of 50 square feet, unless the architectural
corr rr ission deterrr ines that the proposed size of the sign is not in
harry ony with the design of the building. Such a sign rr ust be located
adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which its area is deterrr ined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet frorr a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a rr axirr urr of 75 square
feet unless the architect urat-corr rrission deterrrines that the proposed
size of the sign is not in harrrony with the design of the building.
Such a sign rrust be located adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which
its area is deterrr fined.
c. A single business having leneal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272 (part),
1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit
A §25.38- 12.01).
D..Section 68.350 presently perrr its the Director of Environmental Services
to approve terr porary banners of up to 30 square feet for a period not
to exceed 30 days per year.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the Director of Environ-
rr ental Services, a business rr ay erect one terr porary sign, rr ounted on
a wall facia nr irecstanding, advertising special events, prorr otions or sales.
On purr erous occasions banners for longer than 30 days have been requested _
and sorr a instances have been perrritted pursuant to special city council
dispensation. Therefore, it is proposed that this action be codified by adding
to section 68.350 the following: ,
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days rr ay only be perrritted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign rray be used."
-3-
W. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recorr rr ends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No.
"A'Resolution of the Planning Corr rr ission of the City
of Palrr Desert recorr rr ending approval to the city
Council of certain arr endrr ents to the rr unicipal code
(section 25.68 - Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Legal Notice
Prepared by r�leC.l,C
Approved by '
f
Y
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the
City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of , 1984, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAM ON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
Fe and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
C. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the removal
of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty five days prior
to an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environmental services a map or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
G. No signs shall be permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or
any other movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches
in size."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on
the second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent
of the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story build-
ings by the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98
§1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new
developments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site
plan review procedure. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-16.01)•
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm
is hereby Desert, be and the same y amended to read as follows:
25,68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this
chapter shall be subject to the approval of thF: architectural commission
process. In approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing
body shall utilize the following review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of subs-
tantial trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health,
safety, and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the isgn is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and
other signs in the area.
S
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its
visual elements (lettering, works, figures, colors, decorative motifs,
spacing and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions
prevailing where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual character-
istics of the surrounding area so as not to detract form or cause
depreciation of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A '§25.38-16.02).
SECTIONAS: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as
approved by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sign area -- Commercial and Industrial uses. Sign design,
location and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission.
Relative thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
A. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot
of frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural
commission determines that the proposed size of the sign is not
in harmony with the design of the building. Such a sign must be
located adjacent to the right..-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public
right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one-half
square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design
of the building. Such a sign must be Icoated adjacent to the right-
of-way from which its area is determined.
C. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or B of
this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272
(part), 1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-12.01).
SECTIOM 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of
environmental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted
on a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or
sales. The director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending
upon the qpe of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a
period not to exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special
event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign may be displayed."
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Corr rr ission
DATE: Decerr ber 18, 1984
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Arr endrr ent to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning
the regulation of signs.
APPLICANT: City of Palrr Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
This arrendrrent was initiated as a result of recent court rulings throughout
California which seriously impacted the validity of the city's sign ordinance
as it related to the regulation of political signs. In this regard the city
attorney has prepared new political sign regulations which are in keeping
with the court rulings:
This is the first review of the sign ordinance since Septem ber 1981 and staff
felt it would be appropriate to review other sections of the ordinance at
this tiff e. These other an endm ents in sour a cases are clarification of existing
sections, updating of the sign regulations in light of other code arc endm ents
and deletion of redundant sections.
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
A. As prepared by the city attorney the present section 620 dealing with
political signs would be deleted and replaced with the following:
1125.68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall•com ply with the following requireff ents:
a. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
b. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
c. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
d. All political signs shall be rerr oved within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the rem oval
of the political signs.
e. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty-five days prior
to an election.
f. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environmental services a map or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
g. No signs shall be perm itted on trucks, autoff obiles, trailers, or any
other ff ovable vehicles except for buff per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size."
EXISTING SECTION:
25.69.620 Political sign regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall corn ply with the following requirem ents:
a. The applicant shall post a one hundred dollar cash bond with the
city to guarantee rem oval of the political signs.
b. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
c. The signs shall not be located closer together than five hundred
feet.
d. No political signs shall be allowed in any residential zone.
e. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
f. All political signs shall be ren oved within ten days after the election
date or the bond posted shall be forfeited and the city shall use
whatever part of the bond rr oney as is necessary for ren oval. Any
an ount of the bond rem aining shall be refunded upon request rr ade
within ninety days after the election. No political signs will be
posted earlier than fortyfive days prior to an election.
g. The one hundred dollar bond requiren ents in this section shall also
apply to signs located at can paign or party headquarters.
h. No fee or pern it shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environn ental services a nap or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
i. The city shall establish a separate account to be entitled political
sign ren oval, for the purpose of holding and accounting for the cash
bond requiren ents of this section. Moneys frorT this account will
be used to rerrove signs illegally posted. Any surplus noneys fron
this account nay be used to renove signs posted without a bond.
j. Nol isigns shall be pern itted on trucks, auton obiles, trailers, or any
other n ovable vehicles except for bun per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size. (Ord. 129
§4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A§25.38-17.06).
B. Ordinance No. 326 adopted February 26, 1983, changed the nan a of the
Design Review Board to Architectural Con n ission. It is proposed that
all references to the Design Review Board in the sign ordinance, Section
68 be deleted and replaced with Architectural Cott rr ission. This would
result in changes to subsections 320, 430, 440 and 480.
C. Section 25.68.270 n ight be considered the n ost in portant section in the
ordinance in that it controls the size of the signs which n ay be approved.
Unfortunately, section 68.270 as presently written does not accurately
reflect the way in which staff has consistently interpretted the size lin it.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.270 Sign area -- Con n ercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the design review process. Relative thereto,
the following sign areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one. hundred feet of a public right-of-way which they
face; oro businesses which front only on a con rT on use parking area
shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage,
unless the design review board determines that the proposed size of
the sign is not in harp ony with the design of the building. Such a
sign' 1 g niuet��be located adjacent to the right-of-way fron which its area
is deterrr fined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet fron a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage, unless the design review board
determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harp ony with
the design of the building. Such a sign n ust be located adjacent to
the right-of-way fron which its area is detern fined.
c. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord..272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
12.01).
The problem is that subsection "c" appears to give businesses in excess
of 50 lineal feet of frontage all of what they are entitled to under subsection
"a" or "b" plus that which they are entitled to under subsection "c".
Staff has consistently interpretted this to m can that the signs permitted
under subsections "a" or "b" only apply to the first 50 feet of frontage.
Example: A building with 200 feet of frontage located less than 100
feet from street.
Under present interpretation this building would be entitled to up to
100 square feet of signage (ie: 50 square feet for the first 50 lineal
feet plus 25 square feet for the next 50 lineal feet plus 25 square feet
for the last 100 lineal feet).
The way section 68.270 is written the sign size could be interpretted
to allow as much as 250 square feet (ie: 200 feet for 200 feet of building
plus the additional 50 square feet permitted under subsection "c").
PROPOSED SECTION 68.270
25 68.270 Sign area -- Commercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the architectural corn mission. Relative
thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a corrrron use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of
frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet, unless the architectural
commission determines that the proposed size of the sign is not in
harm ony with the design of the building. Such a sign m ust be located
adjacent to the right-of-way from which its area is determ ined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of 75 square
feet unless the architectural=corn m ission determ ines that the proposed
size of the sign is not in harm ony with the design of the building.
Such a sign must be located adjacent to the right-of-way from which
its area is determined.
c. A single business having leneal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272 (part),
1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit
A §25.38- 12.01).
M.Section 68.350 presently permits the Director of Environmental Services
to approve temporary banners of up to 30 square feet for a period not
to exceed 30 days per year.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the Director of Environ-
rr ental Services, a business m ay erect one tern porary sign, rr ounted on
a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, prom otions or saps.
On num erous occasions banners for longer than 30 days have been requested _
and sour a instances have been permitted pursuant to special city council
dispensation. Therefore, it is proposed that this action be codified by adding
to section 68.350 the following: .
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign may be used.".
r
III.. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recorrrrends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No.
"A:Resolution of the Planning Corr rr ission of the City
of Pala Desert recorrrrending approval to the city
Council of certain arr endn ents to the rr unicipal code
(section 2168 - Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Legal Notice
Prepared by
Approved by '
r-:
t ,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the
City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of , 1984, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dlg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
Fe and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
1125.68.620 Political Sign Reg ulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
C. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the removal
of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty five days prior
to an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environmental services a map or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
G. No signs shall be permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or
any other movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches
in size."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.69.320 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on
The second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent
of the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story build-
ings by the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98
41 (part), 1975: Exhibit A 525.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new
developments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site
plan review procedure. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sian_ Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this
chapter shall be subject to the approval of the architectural commission
process. In approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing
body shall utilize the following review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of subs-
tantial trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health,
safety, and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the isgn is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and
other signs in the area.
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its
visual elements (lettering, works, figures, colors, decorative motifs,
spacing and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions
prevailing where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual character-
istics of the surrounding area so as not to detract form or cause
depreciation of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16.02).
SECTION/15: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as
approved by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sign area -- Commercial and Industrial uses. Sign design,
location and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission.
Relative thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
A. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot
of frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural
commission determines that the proposed size of the sign is not
in harmony with the design of the building. Such a sign must be
located adjacent to the right..-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public
right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one-half
square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design
of the building. Such a sign must be lcoated adjacent to the right-
of-way from which its area is determined.
C. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or B of
this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign ar
ea for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272
(part), 1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-12.01).
SECTION I 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of
environmental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted
in advertising special events promotions or
on a wall facia or freestanding, g p �
sales. The director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending
upon the qpe of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a
period not to exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special
event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign may be displayed."
PROOF OF Pi ".11CATION Thisspecelsfr sle County Clerk's Filing Stamo
(2015.5 C.,.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, c.
County of Riverside r— n
J`
I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM DESERT `t�
resident of the County aforesaid; I am over -n _
the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Pub1)catloq.of
or interested in the above entitled matter. I m
am the principal clerk of the printer of the PROPOSED AMENDMENTS .TO SIGN
........I... ...............................
............AF.$FTR� .POST............... REGULATIONS
......
.............................................
...............
CITY OFPALN OESERT
••• "............•........ LEOAL NOTICE
a newspaper of general circulation, printed ° °Am"°
Rego ro Sipe
RpuNtlom
and published .... Bi—weekly NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN that a
.......................... meaning,open ta`]he p6b4c,will be
held by the committee of the whole,
of the Pear Deaed Planning Com-
In the City of ,,, mission to consider certain amend
' •••••••.. ... ments to the sign ordinance (in
County of Riverside, and Which ( eluding revisions as they relate to
news. Political algni
Paper has been adjudged a newspaper SAID public meeting will be held on +
Of Tuesday,January 15,19B5.at t _ 1
general circulation by the Superior peen. aI the Palm Desert civic 11
Court of the County Center Council Chamber, 73510
of Riverside, State of Fred Waring Drive, Palen Desert.
CallforNe,At,which time and place
California, under the date of„ 0 5 a11in1eamtipeaud, . r0int¢dto
�..�.., 19 , 64 mamamben¢ara.Al
. RAldoN A.OIAZ
Secretary -
Case Number 83658 ...; that the notice, Planning comet Desert .
Of which the annexed is a printed Copy (set Pub. ion
a Dec.28.198
in type not smaller than nonpareil), has
been published in each regular and entire
issue of said newspaper and not In any
supplement thereof on the following dates,
to-wit:
12/28 & 1/4
......... ........................
all in the year 19..9A.
I certify (or declare) under penalty of U 7 1985
perjury that the foregoing Is true and ENV1;Roigl,1LNTAL SERVICES
correct. CITY OF PALM DESERT
Dated at...... Palm Desert
. ..I..............................
California,this.,, 4 th .day of•.. Jan1.198.5
S' natu e
F rag Co Fin of fill OIEew farm May be ncYred IrgM1
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE
BUREAU, INC.
Legal Advertising Clearing House
120 west Second St., Los Angeles, Calif. 90012
Telephone; (213) 625.2541
Plea"rNunl O■Na a Al great of FllfIlletllea
wage araorlM this form.
i
®ff nnWal ,_ =)aP=MuPMa0
.73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
r �
VV
January 30 1985 11 1 U
s 1985
Mr. Don Perfetti, President ENViROWALNFAL SLRvICES
Palm Desert Board of Realtors CITY OF PALh1 DESERT
44-475 Monterey Avenue
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Perfetti:
At its meeting of December 18th, the Palm Desert Planning Commission reviewed
proposed revisions to the City's sign ordinance. These changes deal specifically with
political sign and special event regulations.
The Commission expressed concern over the lack of any public input at this meeting and
requested a special work session be scheduled for noon on Tuesday, January 15th, in the
Civic Center Council Chamber. Commissioners will at that time receive public input on
not only the proposed changes, but any portion of the ordinance which may be of concern
to individuals or businesses in the community.
In an attempt to receive as much public comment as possible, I am hereby requesting that
your group review the enclosed staff report and respond with any concerns you may have
at this time. If you have concerns about either the existing ordinance or the proposed
changes, we would appreciate having a representative of your organization attend the
meeting on January 15th.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your assistance is most appreciated.
S"ncerely,
SHEILA R. GIL IGAN
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
SRG/pr
Enclosure (as noted)
CZ9t.(bWP (M)o nDm� =)(&=®nPq&V
"73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
January 3, 1985
Mr. Kermit Martin, President
Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
72-990 Highway I I I
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Kermit:
At its meeting of December 18th, the Palm Desert Planning Commission reviewed
proposed revisions to the City's sign ordinance. These changes deal specifically with
political sign and special event regulations.
The Commission expressed concern over the lack of any public input at this meeting and
requested a special work session be scheduled for noon on Tuesday, January 15th, in the
Civic Center Council Chamber. Commissioners will at that time receive public input on
not only the proposed changes, but any portion of the ordinance which may be of concern
to individuals or businesses in the community.
In an attempt to receive as much public comment as possible, I am hereby requesting that
your group review the enclosed staff report and respond with any concerns you may have
at this time. If you have concerns about either the existing ordinance or the proposed
changes, we would appreciate having a representative of your organization attend the
meeting on January 15th.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Your assistance is most appreciated.
3Sierely,
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
SRG/pr
Enclosure (as noted)
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: SHEILA GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1984
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SIGN REGULATIONS
Planning Commission at its December 18, 1984, meeting held a public hearing regarding
proposed amendments to the sign regulations. At that time the public hearing was
continued to February 5, 1985. In addition, a committee of the whole of the the planning
commission will hold a special meeting open to the public at 12:00 noon on January 15,
1985. The legal notice for the January 15, 1985, meeting has be sent to the Desert Post.
Commission requested that more than the usual legal noticing be supplied for this matter
for both of these meetings.
Therefore, the purpose of this memo is to request the issuance of a press release and
attempt to publicize this matter.
In addition, commission requested that the February 5, 1985, meeting be readvertised and
that the notice be enlarged to approximately a quarter page and be located in the news
section.
Will you please advise us as to procedures to accomplish these goals.
i
l ON . DIAZ
I ECT R OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
RAD/tm
k
Ir
r 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
December 21, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
Proposed Amendments to Sign Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a meeting, open to the public, will be held by the
committee of the whole of the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider certain
amendments to the sign ordinance (including revisions as they relate to political signs).
SAID public meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 1985,, at 12:00 noon, at the Palm
Desert Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 28, 1984, and
January 4, 1984
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION
25. 68. 620 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
RELATING TO REGULATION OF POLITICAL SIGNS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFOR-
NIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows:
SECTION 1: That Section 25. 68. 620 of the Code
of the City of Palm Desert, be and the same is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"25. 68. 620 Political Sign Regulations. Appli-
cants for political signs, as defined in Section 25. 68. 020 ,
shall comply with the following requirements :
A. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in
area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together
than fifty feet.
C. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence
posts, or affixed to public utility poles and shall not be
located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten
days after the election date. The applicant shall be personally
responsible for the removal of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than
forty-five days prior to an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right
to erect political signs but the applicant, or his agent,
shall file with the director of environmental services a map
or sketch, or otherwise adequately locate where the signs will
be erected.
G. No signs shall be permitted on trucks, automobiles ,
�J
trailers, or any other movable vehicles except for bumper
stickers or other equivalent stickers not exceeding five
inches by twenty inches in size. "
SECTION 2: The city clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the
same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a news-
paper of general circulation, printed, published and circu-
lated within the City of Palm Desert and the same shall be
in full force and effect thirty days after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1984 , by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WALTER H . SNYDER, Mayor
City of Palm Desert, California
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Corr rr ission
DATE: DecerT ber 18, 1984
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
REQUEST: Arr endrr ent to Municipal Code, Chapter 25.68, concerning
the regulation of signs.
APPLICANT: City of Palrr Desert
I. BACKGROUND:
This arr endrr ent was initiated as a result of recent court rulings throughout
California which seriously irr patted the validity of the city's sign ordinance
as it related to the regulation of political signs. In this regard the city
attorney has prepared new political sign regulations which are in keeping
with the court rulings:
This is the first review of the sign ordinance since Septerr ber 1981 and staff
felt it would be appropriate to review other sections of the ordinance at
this tirr e. These other arc endrr ents in sorr e cases are clarification of existing
sections, updating of the sign regulations in light of other code arr endrr ents
and deletion of redundant sections.
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
A. As prepared by the city attorney the present section 620 dealing with
political signs would be deleted and replaced with the following:
1125.68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall corr ply with the following requirerr ents:
a. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
b. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
c. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
d. All political signs shall be rerr oved within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the rerr oval
of the political signs.
e. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty-five days prior
to an election.
f. No fee or perrr it shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environrr ental services a rr ap or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
g. No signs shall be permitted on trucks, autorr obiles, trailers, or any
other rr ovable vehicles except for burr per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size.'
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.620 Political sign regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall corr ply with the following requirerr ents:
a. The applicant shall post a one hundred dollar cash bond with the
city to guarantee rerr oval of the political signs.
b. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
c. The signs shall not be located closer together than five hundred
feet.
d. No political signs shall be allowed in any residential zone.
e. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-
way.
f. All political signs shall be rerr oved within ten days after the election
date or the bond posted shall be forfeited and the city shall use
whatever part of the bond rr oney as is necessary for rerr oval. Any
arc ount of the bond rerr aining shall be refunded upon request rr ade
within ninety days after the election. No political signs will be
posted earlier than fortyfive days prior to an election.
g. The one hundred dollar bond requirerr ents in this section shall also
apply to signs located at carr paign or party headquarters.
h. No fee or perrr it shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environrr ental services a rr ap or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
i. The city shall establish a separate account to be entitled political
sign rerr oval, for the purpose of holding and accounting for the cash
bond requirerr ents of this section. Moneys frorr this account will
be used to rerr ove signs illegally posted. Any surplus rr oneys frorr
this account rray be used to rerrove signs posted without a bond.
j. No lSigns shall be perrr itted on trucks, autorr obiles, trailers, or any
other rr ovable vehicles except for burr per stickers or other equivalent
stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches in size. (Ord. 129
§4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A§25.38-17.06).
B. Ordinance No. 326 adopted February 26, 1983, changed the narr e of the
Design Review Board to Architectural Corr rr ission. It is proposed that
all references to the Design Review Board in the sign ordinance, Section
68 be deleted and replaced with Architectural Corr rr ission. This would
result in changes to subsections 320, 430, 440 and 480.
C. Section 25.68.270 rright be considered the rr ost irr portant section in the
ordinance in that it controls the size of the signs which rr ay be approved.
Unfortunately, section 68.270 as presently written does not accurately
reflect the way in which staff has consistently interpretted the size lirr it.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.270 Sign area -- Corr rr ercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the design review process. Relative thereto,
the following sign areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which they
face; orobLisinesses which front only on a corr rr on use parking area
shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage,
unless the design review board deterrrines that the proposed size of
the sign is not in harrr ony with the design of the building. Such a
sign' mustibe located adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which its area
is deterrr ined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet frorr a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage, unless the design review board
deterrr ines that the proposed size of the sign is not in harrr ony with
the design of the building. Such a sign rr ust be located adjacent to
the right-of-way frorr which its area is deterrr fined.
c. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet,
and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal
foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272 (part), 1981:
Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-
12.01).
'-2
The problerr is that subsection "c" appears to give businesses in excess
of 50 lineal feet of frontage all of what they are entitled to under subsection
"a" or "b" plus that which they are entitled to under subsection "c".
Staff has consistently interpretted this to rr can that the signs perrr itted
under subsections "a" or "b" only apply to the first 50 feet of frontage.
Exarr pie: A building with 200 feet of frontage located less than 100
feet frorr street.
Under present interpretation this building would be entitled to up to
100 square feet of signage (ie: 50 square feet for the first 50 lineal
feet plus 25 square feet for the next 50 lineal feet plus 25 square feet
for the last 100 lineal feet).
The way section 68.270 is written the sign size could be interpretted
to allow as rr uch as 250 square feet (fie: 200 feet for 200 feet of building
plus the additional 50 square feet perrr fitted under subsection "c").
PROPOSED SECTION 68.270
25.68.270 Sign area -- Corr rr ercial and Industrial uses. Sign design, location
and size shall be as approved by the architectural Corr rr ission. Relative
thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
a. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a corr rr on use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of
frontage to a rr axirrurr of 50 square feet, unless the architectural
corr rrission deterrrines that the proposed size of the sign is not in
harrr ony with the design of the building. Such a sign rr ust be located
adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which its area is deterrrined.
b. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet frorr a public right-
of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one half square
feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a rr axirr urr of 75 square
feet unless the architectural corr rrission deterrrines that the proposed
size of the sign is not in harrr ony with the design of the building.
Such a sign rr ust be located adjacent to the right-of-way frorr which
its area is deterrrined.
c. A single business having leneal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections a or b of
this section, an additional one half square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for each
lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272 (part),
1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit
A §25.38- 12.01).
D. .Section 68.350 presently perrrits the Director of Environrr ental Services
to approve terr porary banners of up to 30 square feet for a period not
to exceed 30 days per year.
EXISTING SECTION:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the Director of Environ-
rr ental Services, a business rr ay erect one terr porary sign, rr ounted on
a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, prorr otions or sales.
On nurr erous occasions banners for longer than 30 days have been requested _
and son e instances have been perrr itted pursuant to special city council
dispensation. Therefore, it is proposed that this action be codified by adding
to section 68.350 the following:
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days rr ay only be perrr fitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign rray be used."
-3-
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recorr rr ends approval of Case ZOA 84-3 by adoption of Resolution
No.
"A Resolution of the Planning Corr rrission of the City
of Palrr Desert recorr rT ending approval to the city
Council of certain arr endrr ents to the rr unicipal code
(section 25.68 - Signs)."
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Legal Notice
Prepared by
Approved by
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
CASE NO. ZOA 84-3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 18th day of December, 1984, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider amendments to Section 25.68.
WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the
City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has
determined the project to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning
commission did find the following facts to justify its recommendations as described
below:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted
General Plan and affected Specific Plans.
3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public
health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Desert, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission.
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment contained in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this _ day of , 1984, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BUFORD CRITES, Chairman
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
/dlg
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
SECTION 1: That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert,
be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
"25.68.620 Political Sign Regulations. Applicants for political signs, as
defined in Section 25.68.020, shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in area.
B. The signs shall not be located closer together than fifty feet.
C. Such signs shall not be nailed to trees, fence posts, or affixed to
public utility poles and shall not be located in the public right-of-way.
D. All political signs shall be removed within ten days after the election
date. The applicant shall be personally responsible for the removal
of the political signs.
E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than forty five days prior
to an election.
F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right to erect political
signs but the applicant, or his agent, shall file with the director
of environmental services a map or sketch, or otherwise adequately
locate where the signs will be erected.
G. No signs shall be permitted on trucks, automobiles, trailers, or
any other movable vehicles except for bumper stickers or other
equivalent stickers not exceeding five inches by twenty inches
in size."
SECTION 2: That Section 25.68.320 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.320 Second-story Business. Businesses maintained exclusively on
the second floor of a two-story building may be allowed up to fifty percent
of the sign area authorized for businesses conducted in single-story build-
ings by the architectural commission. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98
§1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-12.04).
SECTION 3: That Section 25.68.430 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.430 Architectural Commission Process. Each sign shall be submitted
to the architectural commission prior to its erection. In the case of new
developments, a signing program shall be submitted as part of the site
plan review procedure. (Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-16.01).
SECTION 4: That Section 25.68.440 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.440 Sign Review Criteria. All signs which are regulated by this
chapter shall be subject to the approval of the architectural commission
process. In approving or rejecting a particular sign permit, the reviewing
body shall utilize the following review criteria:
A. That the sign is necessary for the applicants enjoyment of subs-
tantial trade and property rights.
B. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter
and title.
C. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health,
safety, and welfare.
D. That the size, shape, color and placement of the sign is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies.
E. That the size, shape, color and placement of the isgn is compatible
with and bears a harmonious relationship to the neighborhood and
other signs in the area.
F. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its
visual elements (lettering, works, figures, colors, decorative motifs,
spacing and proportions) are legible under normal viewing conditions
prevailing where the sign is to be installed.
G. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure
from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs.
H. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape,
illumination and color are compatible with the visual character-
istics of the surrounding area so as not to detract form or cause
depreciation of the value of adjacent developed properties.
I. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity
to any residential district does not adversely affect the value or
character of the adjacent residential district. (Ord. 129 §4 (part),
1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A §25.38-16A2).
SECTIONGS: That Section 25.68.480 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.480 Sign Colors. The number and type of colors used shall be as
approved by the architectural commission.
SECTION 6: That Section 25.68.270 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.270 Sign area -- Commercial and Industrial uses. Sign design,
location and size shall be as approved by the architectural commission.
Relative thereto, the following sign areas shall apply:
A. Businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which
they face, or businesses which front only on a common use parking
area shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot
of frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet unless the architectural
commission determines that the proposed size of the sign is not
in harmony with the design of the building. Such a sign must be
located adjacent to the right-of-way from which its area is determined.
B. Businesses located greater than one hundred feet from a public
right-of-way, which they face, shall be entitled to one and one-half
square feet of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of
75 square feet unless the architectural commission determines that
the proposed size of the sign is not in harmony with the design
of the building. Such a sign must be lcoated adjacent to the right-
of-way from which its area is determined.
C. A single business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess
of fifty feet, shall be entitled in addition to subsections A or B of
this section, an additional one-half square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred
feet, and an additional one quarter square foot of sign area for
each lineal foot of frontage in excess of a hundred feet. (Ord. 272
(part), 1981: Ord. 129 §4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 §1 (part), 1975:
Exhibit A §25.38-12.01).
SEECTIKDNI 7: That Section 25.68.350 of the Code of the City of Palm
Desert, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.68.350 Special Event Signs. With the approval of the director of
environmental services, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted
on a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or
sales. The director may approve up to 30 square feet of sign area depending
upon the type of event, building design and right-of-way frontage for a
period not to exceed 30 days per year. When improperly used, special
event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated.
"Special event signs for periods in excess of 30 days may only be permitted
pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which
shall specify the period during which the sign may be displayed."
u ,
. 'ram• '
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
November 29, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE. ZOA 84-3
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the municipal code
Chapter 25.68 concerning the regulation of signs, a class 5 categorical exemption
for the purposes of CEQA.
SAID public hearing will be held Tuesday, December 18, 1984 at 2:00 p.m in
the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring
Drive Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons
are invited to attend and be heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 7, 1984
G$i1wr oil ZF80,n„u, zM®=(&nP11
73-510 FRED WARINO DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
November 29, 1984
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE. ZOA 84-3 .
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the municipal code
Chapter 25.68 concerning the regulation of signs, a class 5 categorical exemption
for the purposes of CEQA.
6
SAID public hearing will be held Tuesday, December 18, 1984 at 2:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring
Drive Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons
are invited to attend and be heard.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
i
PUBLISH: Desert Post
December 7, 1984
c
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert Mn
TO: BRUCE ALTMAN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: FRANK ALLEN, DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMMENDING POLITICAL SIGNS DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 819 4
The City Attorney has submitted the attached Ordinance amending section 25.68.620
regulating political signs.
This Ordinance brings this section into compliance with recent State rulings
pertaining to political signs.
Some of the highlights are:
1. Deletes the posting of a $100 cash bond.
2. Deletes signs not being posted closer than 500 feet.
3. Signs are now allowed 50 feet apart.
4. Signs are now allowed in residential districts.
5. 20 51 X 5"bumper sticker decal allowed on vehicles.
6. Signs can only be posted 45 days prior to an election.
FRANK ALLEN, Director
Code Compliance Department
FA:db
ERWIN & ANDERHOLT
DAVID J.ERWIN A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
PALM SPRINGS OFFICE
J.JOHN ANDERHOLT 74-090 EL PASEO 960 EAST TAHOUIT2-MCCALLUM WAY
JEFFERY S.R.PATTERSON POST OFFICE BOX 789
MICHAEL J,ANOELSON SUITE 203
DOUGLAS S.PHILLIPS PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 PALM SPRINGS,CALIFORNIA 92262
GREGORY A.SWAJIAN TELEPHONE(619)568-2611
CHARLES M.ELLIS TELEPHONE 619 322-2466
LANTSON E.ELDRED
JOHN L.SUPPLE TERRENCE J.WALTON.CPA
CAL MCINTOSH ADMINISTRATOR
BARBARA E.KRISTAL
WILLIAM K,HANLIN•
*MEMBER BRITISH COLVMBIA,MANITOBA AND November 9 19 84
CANADIAN SAA.NOT ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA.
Mr. Frank Allen
City of Palm Desert
Post Office Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92261
Re: Ordinance Relating to Regulation of Political Signs
Dear Frank:
Enclosed you will find the original Ordinance Relating to
the Regulation of Political Signs.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in forwarding this
to you.
Yours y ruly,
DAVID J. ERWIN
DJE/st/vcd
enclosure
I ..