Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 964 ZOA 98-5 Amendment 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of amendments to the sign ordinance - political signs. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 98-5 Amendment #2 V. DATE: August 24, 2000 MEETING DATE p Q • oZy VI. CONTENTS: ❑ CONTINUED TO ., A. Staff Recommendation LLPASSED TO 2ND READING l -l LI-OO B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. 964 D. Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2000 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 18, 2000 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waiver further reading and pass Ordinance No. 964 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: In 1998 City Council held two public hearings on amending the regulations of political signs. The Council did not act on either amendment. The City Attorney has been working over the last few months to draft an acceptable amendment. The Planning Commission considered this amendment at its July 18, 2000 meeting and recommended its approval on a 3-0 vote (Commissioners Beaty and Jonathan absent), subject to the City Attorney adding language to require removal of these signs within a reasonable period of time after an election. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 98-5 AMENDMENT #2 AUGUST 24, 2000 CURRENT PROPOSAL: This current amendment will repeal the current provisions of Section 25.68.620 Political Signs and replace it with provisions prohibiting political signs in the public right-of-way, shall require property owner permission to locate them on private property, shall not require a fee and said signs shall not be placed in a manner to create a hazard to public health or safety. Pursuant to the request of Planning Commission the City Attorney has added subsection "D" which reads: "Signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days following the election. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: i an cu : • TEVE SMITH PHILIP DR L CARLOS L. ORTEG PLANNING MANAGER DIR. OF COMMUNITY DEV. CITY MANAGER/RD EXEC. DIR. /tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO POLITICAL SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 98-5 AMENDMENT #2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 8th day of July, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the amendment of Zoning Ordinance Section 25.68 relating to political signs; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined the amendment to be a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendment relating to non-commercial signs is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and will protect the community health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council Case No. ZOA 98-5 Amendment #2 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled "A". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of July, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: BEATY, JONATHAN ABSTAIN: NONE J S LOPEZ, V c hairperson ATTEST: -7::=5 .-4.-71U,Qt.} PHILIP DREL , Secretary Palm Desert Manning Commission PLANNING COMMISbiuN RESOLUTION NO. 2002 EXHIBIT A SECTION 1 That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, being the same and 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. All said signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way. B. No fee or permits shall be required for the right to erect political signs. When the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant shall secure the permission of the property owner. C. Signs shall not be placed in any manner to create a hazard to public health or safety." 2 MEMORANDUM To: Buford A. Crites, Mayor Jim Ferguson, Mayor Pro-Tempore Jean M. Benson, Council Member Richard S. Kelly, Council Member Robert A. Spiegel, Council Member FROM: David J. Erwin DATE: June 6, 2000 RE: Political Signs We are entering another season of political signage now through November, 2000. We still have ordinances regarding political signs which because of questionable validity, have not been enforced in the past (Section 25.68.620). I have enclosed a copy of same for your reference. ,a, n'7,, In order to remove any ambiguity, I recommend that we either(1)remove the regulation completely, EK ' f` or(2) modify to require that signs are out of the public right-of-way and, if on private property, to zz:'t . i rA - : secure the consent of the property owner. The other regulation regarding size and location, removal dates (before and after the election) have substantial problems with enforceability. f' tr:^ I ask the Council's direction with regard to this so we can eliminate some of the confusion that has existed in the past. If you have questions, please contact me. encl. cc: Carlos Ortega Sheila Gilligan Rachelle Klassen Phil Drell r 25.68.607 New Years Day the above noted lights may be dis- C. Such signs shall not be located in the public played without review and approval by the city. (Ord. right-of-way; 587§2(Exhibit A§ 19), 1989) D. All political signs shall be removed within ten days after the election date,except that in the case of a 25.68.610 Signs on awnings,marquees,canopies, general election,political signs shall not be required to arcades or similar structures or be removed between the primary and general elections, attachments. but shall be removed within ten days after the general A All awnings or awnings with a sign(s) must be election date.The applicant shall agree in writing to be reviewed and approved by the architectural review personally responsible for the removal of the political commission.The awning(sign)must be architecturally signs; compatible with the building and as a result an awning E. No political signs shall be posted earlier than ninety days prior to an election; may not be appropriate for every building. B. Pursuant to Section 25.68.470 "Proper mainte- F. No fee or permit shall be required for the right nance of signs" awnings must be kept in good repair to erect political signs.Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant shall se and be clean and nonfaded. cure the permission of the property owner. (Ord. 422 C. Awnings must be substantially attached to the Exhibit A§ 1, 1985: Ord. 129§4(part), 1977:Ord.98 main building structure. § 1(part), 1975:Exhibit A§2538-17.06) D. Awning lettering and numbers as well as style and colors must aesthetically blend with the building. E. Letter height shall not exceed one-third of the 25.68.630 Signs for public or quasi-public uses. awning height and in no event shall it exceed eight Directional and public convenience signs for public inches. and quasi public uses may be permitted on public property.The design must conform to standard direc- F. Scalloping on awnings shall not be pronounced. G. Where applicable, awnings shall contain street tional sign specifications promulgated by the director numbers four inches in height with the letter style of environmental services and approved by the design helvetica medium or equivalent. review board.The total number of signs allowed shall H. Awnings shall not contain phone numbers. be based on the minimum number necessary for ade- I. Street drop type awnings (i.e.canvas vinyl signs) quate public identification as determined by the direc- shall not be encouraged.(Ord.587§2(Exhibit A§17), tor of environmental services. (Ord. 129 § 4 (part), 1989:Ord.129§4(part),1977:Ord.98§1(part),1975: 1977:Ord.98§1(part),1975:Exhibit A§25.38-17.07) Exhibit A§25.38-17.05) XL ENFORCEMENT AND AMORTIZATION 25.68.615 Open summer signs. Between June 1st and October 1st,restaurants,re- 25.68.640 Lawful nonconforming signs. tail and personal service businesses within the commer- A. Lawful existing on-premises signs at the time of cia!zone may display a sign in addition to a main sign, the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter not to exceed five square feet, indicating if they will on February 24, 1977, which do not comply with the remain open during the summer.The design and loca- requirements of this chapter, as amended, shall be tion of the sign shall be compatible with other signs on deemed lawful nonconforming uses and shall be made the building and must be approved by the department to comply,be removed or demolished upon the transfer of environmental services. (Ord.272(part), 1981) of ownership of the business or upon the altering of sign,copy,size,color or the addition of new signage to 25.68.620 Political sign regulation. the site or structure upon which the nonconforming Applicants for political signs, as defined in Section sign is located. 25.68.020, shall comply with the following require- B. Nonconforming signs may not be expanded,ex- ments: tended, rebuilt, altered or reconstructed in any way, A. Each sign shall not exceed five square feet in except for normal maintenance or to protect public area; safety. B. The signs shall not be located closer together C. It shall be the express responsibility of the ven- than fifty feet; dor to advise the vendee of the provisions of this section 452 MEMORANDUM To: Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert FROM:. David J. Erwin`d DATE: June 12, 2000 RE: Zoning Ordinance Modification The attached is a modification of the zoning ordinance and needs a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. If you would, please start the process to amend this particular section at the earliest possible time. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Robert W. Hargreaves, Esq. w/encl. RMPUB\DJE\167609 SUBJECT TO L :.q MINUTES w rt REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 talking about what it would look like the first, second or third year, but in the years to come - to maintain the landscaping and be something that Mobil would also be very proud to have in Palm Desert as well as being an element when first entering and then leaving our community. That gateway or entrance and exit from the city was very popular and would get even more popular as development continued in that area. It would be a very busy intersection with high visibility. Overall he felt the project looked good and he would be in favor of it. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Vice Chairperson Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Vice Chairperson Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001 , approving CUP 00-06, subject to conditions. Motion carried 2-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). E. Case No. ZOA 98-5 Amendment #2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance - political signs. Mr. Smith informed commission that in 1998 Planning Commission sent the council two previous versions of a political sign ordinance. The council failed to act on either of those recommendations. Over the past few months the city attorney worked with council to draft an acceptable amendment. That was what was before the commission. It would basically repeal the current section 25.68.620 and replace it with provisions prohibiting political signs in the public right-of-way, requiring property owner permission to locate them on private property, did not require a fee and said signs would not be placed in a manner that would create a hazard to the public health or safety. Staff recommended that the commission forward the proposed amendment to the city council. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked for clarification with regard to taking the signs down and the time frame being difficult to enforce so it wasn't included in the ordinance. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Political free speech ran 365 17 I. F.) ,,,,.., c:: SUBJECT TO MINUTES L,,,i t. i REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 days of the year. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked if someone put up their sign, had an election, including general election, then they could just leave them up as long as they wished. Mr. Drell said that they could be running in the next four years and start now to advertise. Vice Chairperson Lopez said he had a problem with that. One of the things he has always had a difficult time with was when elections were over, and there were all kinds of signs including paper signs, cardboard signs, very nice wood signs which he helped put up, etc., but it was also difficult when they were blowing around in the wind and turned into debris. Commissioner Campbell asked if he removed the signs he put up after the election was over. Vice Chairperson Lopez said yes, the next day they got them down. Commissioner Finerty said she had a question for the City Attorney. She asked if the commission was correct in understanding f. , ;; • that the city council didn't want a time frame for the signs to be removed. Mr. t %6;11i :L..,'y,:5 Hargreaves said he hadn't been involved in the loop so he wasn't sure what ;,,,;,*-i, -.a: , ih,.,, -.. the city council wanted. He thought from a legal standpoint that there was a ow,:: kit 01.1. concern given the current case law that a requirement that they be removed t ,, l`4,-,;,. 'rl, • within a particular timeframe would be unenforceable and would render the A4r ,�� ;, ::.:,. ordinance unconstitutional. He knew on the other hand that that requirement t _ was frequently imposed by different cities. He cited a Riverside newspaper .f- :.., , article talking about Fontana and they just enacted restrictions that required them to come down. He wasn't in that loop so he couldn't tell the commission what the council was looking for. Mr. Drell didn't think it was a result of City Council direction. From a technical point of view, free speech was free speech unless it impinged upon public health and safety. He said that they could enact an ordinance and probably 95% of the people would comply since most people obey ordinances and most people didn't sue cities regardless of how arbitrary and capricious they were. The City Attorney was simply saying that if they were to follow the constitution as interpreted bythe P courts, it was part of free sp eech. The rest of the sign ordinance regulated commercial speech. This was different and therefore there was great deference given to it other than in cases where it was creating a physical hazard to public health and safety. They could try and maybe forward on to council that the commission had that preference that that section be added. He asked if there was a severability clause they could build into the ordinance. Although in this case there was so little to the sign ordinance that even if they were to lose the entire thing through a case it was a minimal risk. Commissioner Finerty asked if she was understanding it correctly that if someone didn't take their sign down at some point Code Enforcement would 18 _ SUBJECT TO MINUTES if al s REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 contact them. Mr. Drell said no. From a practical point of view most people would do it any way. Most property owners after an election would take down the signs. He questioned at what point an old sign became litter. Commissioner Finerty said that another concern was now they had the primaries in March and the general election in November and eight months was kind of a long time to keep a sign up. It appeared that with the current ordinance they had a pretty good success rate at getting people to take down their signs. Mr. Drell said that the city really hasn't enforced the ordinance. Commissioner Finerty asked if people came to the Planning Department counter asking for it. Mr. Drell replied that in the last 10 years there probably hasn't been any enforcement of the ordinance and most of what had happened, other than signage on public property, basically this was the ordinance that they have been enforcing over the last two or three elections. He said it was like anything else. Should they pass a law they thought they could get away with or should they pass a law that they knew conformed with case law. He said that the risks were probably relatively minor. If they had a very complicated ordinance that the city wanted to preserve and the chance of having it thrown out because of this, they could think about it, but if we were sued, they would probably win. Vice Chairperson Lopez pointed out that normally the people who didn't have a successful campaign left everything up. The successful ones took them down because they had somewhat of a sense :+.. : of responsibility to take them down because they were now representing the city or at least had some responsibility to their constituents. He said he saw that at the last election where several people that ran still had signs up several weeks afterward. Mr. Drell didn't know, but would check with Code Enforcement, whether they have actually gone out in the past and contacted people. Typically the organization that put them up was gone, so there was no one to contact. Whether they could hold the candidate themselves liable he wasn't sure. Staff could find out whether Code Enforcement has ever gone out and tried to enforce that part of the ordinance in the past or whether ultimately they just disappeared by themselves. Commissioner Campbell asked about when signs were placed on private property and the applicant had to secure the permission of the property owner. She pointed out that a lot of times there were absentee owners. Mr. Drell said that staff could always check if permission was obtained, but it was superfluous because obviously the owner had the ability to enforce it themselves. If the property owner wanted to deny consent, they didn't need a city ordinance to take the signs down. He said that an important part of it 19 Y - SUBJECT TO MINUTES ; REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 was to remind people that they can't just put signs up on other people's property without their permission. It provided the property owner with a little bit more clout in getting rid of it. The more important part was that they couldn't put up signs on public property. Commissioner Finerty said that she liked the idea of reminding people that they ought to take them down ten days after the election, too. Mr. Hargreaves said that they could put in the ordinance something that was directory rather than mandatory like "City Council as a matter of policy requests that candidates remove their signs as part of their civic duty and to maintain the beauty of the community." Vice Chairperson Lopez thought there should be something so that they weren't just left up. Commissioner Finerty agreed and wanted the ordinance to so say something about it so that they weren't just silent on it. Because then it was like they didn't care and it wouldn't matter if they ever k t".ri A° _ came down. Vice Chairperson Lopez asked where they went from here. Mr. ,, Vz �tt Drell noted that the commission was making a recommendation to council and �P`" rt4t h °�.;r the recommendation was that the ordinance contain a provision requesting the � 4 �L. removal of signs ten days after the election. They could let the City Attorney rr mull it over and think of a way to make it as inoffensive to the constitution as possible. Mr. Hargreaves recalled mulling this over several years ago and they came up with a plan that required permitting among other things and the city ,i•� P. t; council didn't want to get that involved in it. The other alternative was to adopt the ordinance the way it is and run it through an election and see what happens and if there was a problem respond to it as best they could. Mr. Drell • asked whether a finding could be made because typically these signs weren't maintained. At some point they became litter and at that point he questioned if they could be deemed a public nuisance. Mr. Hargreaves stated that as long as a person wanted to make a political statement and had that on property where they were entitled to do so, they could. The issue was that at some point after the election whoever was making the statement in reality didn't care any more and the sign became abandoned. There was a presumption that it was abandoned after the election. Mr. Drell said that if they said that they were running in advance for council four years from now, then there was no law that said when they could start their campaign. Vice Chairperson Lopez noted that when the wind starts blowing where some of the signs were, it didn't take long for them to become debris. Mr. Hargreaves recalled that they discussed a requirement that signs be brought in and some kind of a stamp be put on them that established that someone actually owned it and assumed responsibility for it and then if it ended up blowing away or becoming a 20 r M.,7 Pt r .T... SUBJECT TO 0 REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2000 nuisance, that they were responsible. That was a rather cumbersome process. Mr. Drell said that the city didn't want to look like they were approving people's signs. He suggested that the commission make the recommendation that there be a provision added relative to the removal of signs and then between now and the council meeting the City Attorney could include that as a suggested addition. Vice Chairperson Lopez stated that he would like to do that and make it part of the motion. Action: It was moved by Vice Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0. . . It was moved by Vice Chairperson Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002, recommending to City Council approval of ZOA 98-5 Amendment #2. Motion carried 3-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES - (June 21 , 2000) Commissioner Campbell said the committee identified and prioritized sites for future Art in Public Places projects. B. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting) C. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (No meeting) D. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE - (July 18, 2000) Commissioner Finerty indicated that there were no items that concerned the Planning Commission. E. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (No meeting) 21 EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 1 That Section 25.68.620 of the Code of the City of Palm Desert, California, being the same and 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. All said signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way. B. No fee or permits shall be required for the right to erect political signs. When the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant shall secure the permission of the property owner. C. Signs shall not be placed in any manner to create a hazard to public health or safety. D. Signs shall be removed within thirty(30)days following the election."