The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 7.2 SignOrdWkshp (. . CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 25, 1993 SUBJECT: Report on sign Ordinance Workshop ~ D~C David K. Choy, Associate Planner Attachment l~List of Volunteers for sign /Task Force Attachment 2:. Sign Ordinance Revision Work Plan Attachment 3:~sign Ordinance Workshop Attendees REPORT PREPARED BY: EXHIBITS ATTACHED: RECOMMENDATION: ~~1) 2) 3) Review Sign Issues and Provide Direction on the need for Further Consideration Identify Additional Sign Issues Review Composition of sign Task Force and Authorize Mayor to Appoint Sign Task Force Members FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No significant Cost Impact DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND In March of 1993, in response to comments from Dublin businesses, the Chamber of Commerce and city Staff Members, the City Council established the Sign Ordinance Revision project as a high priority goal. The purpose of the Sign Ordinance Revision project is to improve business visibility and sign permit processing time while maintaining attractive and effective identification. In order to clarify the problems experienced by business owners with the Sign Ordinance, the Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey of approximately 550 business in April of 1993. The survey results reinforced the desire by the business community to improve the Sign Ordinance and revealed a willingness of the business community to help identify the major concerns with the Sign Ordinance. On September 29, 1993, the Planning Department, in coordination with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, held a Sign Ordinance Workshop to 1) identify the major sign issues and areas of concern, 2) generate constructive comments on ways to improve the Sign Ordinance and 3) identify those business willing to help improve the sign Ordinance through participation in a Sign Task Force. Approximately 25 business representatives attended the workshop, which was open to the public. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: General/Agenda File Project Planner Chamber of Commerce ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. ..J:. Z COPIES TO: r CITY CLERK I .1:111: ~ . . staff has provided a stiIIiinary of. the., major sign issues which have been brought up through discussions at the Sign Ordinance Workshop and through Staff review. These issues are compiled in the three following categories: · Sign Ordinance Elements: · Visibili ty · Landscaping · Freestanding Signs - Monument Style - Directory Style - Conventional · Accommodating Growth/Expansion · Realtor Signs · Freeway Signage · Automobile Dealership Signs · Permanent Banners and Flags · Simplifying Sign Permit Application/Processing · Enforcement SIGN ORDINANCE ELEMENTS visibility Visibility of signage was brought up as a major concern for most businesses. It was felt that the existing Sign Ordinance did not allow adequate business identification, in terms of the size and amount of signs permitted. In particular, businesses located in the back of multi-tenant centers were concerned about very limited street visibility. The size of their sign lettering was considered to be too small, which resulted in illegible signs from the street. One comment was made to relate the size of signs to the speed limit of the roadway on which the business fronts. Or, in other words, allow businesses located on major or arterial roads, with greater speed limits, to have larger signs than those businesses located on collector streets, with lower speed limits. Landscapinq This concern ties in with the desire for increased visibility. Many of the commercial sites have mature landscaping, including trees, which provide on-site visual relief and also provide a shade canopy for vehicles within the parking lot. Mature trees, however, can have the adverse effect of blocking business signage from the public street. Street trees located off-site, as well as landscaping within median islands, were also identified as items which can hinder business visibility. Freestandinq Siqns Many comments were generated regarding freestanding signs. Discussion focused primarily on the need for larger, more visible and easily understandable freestanding signs, in general. There are, however, three different types of freestanding signs which are permitted by the Sign Ordinance: monument style signs, directory 2 ..... '" :~':~r~'::""'~~;;T;:f.r3<;;:':tJ~',7.';i~:T;;:'3,,~..t'."':'"'J :~---l (- ~ If" f} !., . I, I! ',' i 't til [ 1 ' , :~ ;;~ ......~ __. ____..__."._-1..-._1 --'--"'. '., . . style signs and conventional freestanding signs. It is important to distinguish between these three types. Monument style siqns: These freestanding signs are typically low profile (6' height limit), understated signs with a greater sign length than height and are generally located at the front of a parcel (i.e. Enea Plaza, Operating Engineers Credit Union, Lucky Food stores Corporate Office). These signs typically do not block visibility of the center from the street. Monument signs are used on parcels with single tenants or to identify a shopping center. Sign copy is limited to the name of the individual business or center. Directory stYle siqns: These freestanding signs are generally taller (8' height limit) than they are wide. These signs typically list the name of the individual tenants which are located within the center (Allied Furniture, HL Hendry, , Clothestime sites). Directory signs work well when identifying a center with only a few tenants. Problems arise when a directory sign is used to identify too many tenants and individual name plates are reduced in size to accommodate more business names. This results in an illegible directory sign which is ineffective in providing business identification to drive by traffic. Conventional freestandinq siqns: These freestanding signs are often elevated at or above the height of the building (20' height limit, 35' upon Conditional Use Permit approval). These signs are typically mounted on a pole or posts (pak N Save, Office Depot, Circuit city). Both the size and area permitted for these signs is increased as the setback from the front property line is increased. These signs typically identify the name of the center or the name of the major tenant. Accommodatinq Growth/Expansion A comment was made that the Sign Ordinance should allow signage to accommodate expansion or growth within a center. Currently, the only way to accomplish this is by revising existing freestanding signs within the limits of the Sign Ordinance, rather than simply adding on to an existing freestanding sign each time a new tenant occupies a center. However, for many of the multi-tenant centers expansion is not an option as the freestanding signs already possess the maximum sign area or are controlled by anchor tenants. In large centers it is very difficult to provide each tenant with visibility on a freestanding sign. These sites would need a marquee or cinema type sign, and in order for them to be effective, or readable, these signs would have to be very large. Realtor Signs A comment was made regarding the Sign Ordinance provisions governing realtor/lease signs. The Sign Ordinance currently permits a maximum of four "open house" signs for each property being sold. The location of such signage, which is not permitted to be placed within the public right-of-way, such as on sidewalks, was identified as a concern. consideration of off-site "for lease" signs for apartment complexes was also identifi~d as an issue. Currently each parcel is 3 . . permitted a maximum of 2 temporary sale or lease signs which must be placed on-site. Concern was expressed over the length of time "open house" and "for lease" signs could be displayed. In addition, concern was expressed regarding the disparity between Dublin's realtor/lease sign regulations and those of neighboring cities. Freeway Siqnaqe staff has identified freeway signage as a potential sign issue. staff has received comments from businesses requesting signage which is freeway oriented. Businesses currently have two options available for gaining freeway exposure: wall signs and conventional freestanding signs. For many businesses located adjacent to the freeway, wall signs would need to be installed on the back of buildings, which currently may not qualify as eligible building frontages for signage. For businesses which are not located adjacent to the freeway, conventional freestanding signs would need to be erected high enough to be visible from the freeway. In some cases the freestanding sign would need to project above other buildings in order to be visible from the freeway, which would exceed the current height limitation within the Sign Ordinance. Automobile Dealership Siqns The city council previously initiated a zoning Ordinance Text Amendment study to consider modifying the provisions governing freestanding signs for automobile dealerships. The current Sign Ordinance allows a maximum of two freestanding signs per parcel. Automobile dealerships often carry more than two makes of vehicles, and would like to provide identification for each of their product lines on a freestanding sign. The current limit on sign area restricts the automobile dealers from simply adding a new sign face onto the existing sign poles. Permanent Banners and Flaqs The city council also previously initiated a zoning Ordinance Text Amendment study to consider banners and flags as a permanent form of advertising. Decorative banners and flags can provide a strong visual statement for retail centers, assisting in the attraction of shoppers and patrons. At that time the city council expressed an initial interest in considering banners and flags in the retail commercial districts as well as in light industrial districts, but agreed to let the Downtown specific Plan Task Force and the Planning commission come up with appropriate recommendations. SIMPLIFYING SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION/PROCESSING comments were received requesting that 1) the sign application process be simplified, and 2) the sign permit processing time be reduced. The sign Ordinance currently contains provisions for automatically permitted signs. However, very few businesses have chosen to install a sign in conformance with the automatically permitted sign regulations~ Most businesses prefer to install a larger sign, which requires a formal site Development Review (SDR) 4 . . application. The formal SDR application process involves a discretionary approval. Because the SDR process involves a discretionary approval, state law requires a 300' radius public notice mailing, 10 days prior to approval, in order to provide due process and public input. This not only encumbers the sign review process for the applicant, but it adds a significant amount of processing time and work for staff. All formal SDR applications require a mandatory 10 day appeal period, upon approval. This results in an average of about 30 days to complete the review of a sign processed through a formal SDR application. Flexibility within the Zoning Ordinance was brought up as a method of simplifying the sign permit process as well as reducing the amount of processing time. This raises the issue of whether providing clear, simple standards within the Sign Ordinance would be more expedient in terms of sign permit processing than using guidelines for interpretation to build flexibility into the Sign Ordinance. ENFORCEMENT Most participants wanted stricter enforcement by the City, particularly in the case of temporary or promotional signage. The Workshop group felt that it is not equitable for one business to voluntarily conform to the provisions of the Sign Ordinance while another business violates these same provisions of the Sign Ordinance, such as hanging a banner for too long, without penalty. In order to be fair, it was felt that all businesses should be required to abide by the same regulations. The current City policy enforces the requirements of the sign Ordinance primarily on a complaint basis. Should the City Council wish to enact a more proactive enforcement by Staff, a modification to the current City enforcement procedures would be required. RECOMMENDATION Siqn Issues Staff recommends that the city Council review the major sign issues that have been identified and provide direction on which ones should be further considered. Staff also recommends that the city Council identify any additional sign issues that should be considered. Siqn Task Force Once all of the comments were generated and discussed at the workshop, Staff solicited volunteers willing to help improve the Sign Ordinance through participation on a Sign Task Force. A total of 13 individuals expressed a willingness to participate on the Sign Task Force. The purpose of the Sign Task Force is to work in conjunction with Staff to identify the majon sign issues and analyze potential sign concepts to address the issues. Staff is estimating 3 meetings with the Sign Task Force over a period of approximately 3 months to complete the review. The Sign Task Force meetings will be open to the 5 . . public for all business owners and citizens to attend. Once the review has been completed, an analysis of the proposed revisions to the sign Ordinance would be prepared with appropriate recommendations. A report would then be presented to the Planning commission for pUblic hearing and recommendation. The report would then be presented to the City council for public hearing and action. staff recommends the City Council review the suggested composition of the Sign Task Force and authorize the Mayor to appoint a ten to twelve member Sign Task Force from the list of volunteers shown on Attachment 1. This will allow for a good cross section of interests and provide a group which is manageable in size. Staff suggests that the following categories for selecting the sign Task Force members be used, in order to ensure that a diverse range of interests is being represented (one representative could fill more than one category): . Sign Industry . property owner . Chamber of Commerce . non-Chamber of Commerce . Automotive Dealership . resident . small business owner . multi-tenant center . major retailer . real estate 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t-l~ oE-i~ :>p:;U ~~~ o H ~ o ~ H Ul E-i Ul H t-l . . , , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ,0 0 0 (J) , ,0 0 t::rl t::rl t::rl 0 tylO 0 tylO tyl tyl .-l tyltyltyl t::rlO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ul H..-1 ..-1 ..-1 H -.-1 H H ..-1 H -.-1 ..-1 ..-1 ..-1 ..-1 ..-1 -.-1 H ~ (J) ~ ~ ~ (J) ~ (J) (J) ~ (J) ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ (J) +J (J) H H +J H+J +J (J) +J (J) (J) (J) (J) H (J) ~ H+J H 4--1 :> 0 0 4--1 04--1 4--1 :> 4-l :> :> .-l :> o :> , 04--1 E-i ~W ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~W ~W W ~ W ~W Z ~~ ~ (J) .c: , ..c: >. .-l >. E-t 3: E-t .c: CO ..0 CO , , ..c: ~ , E-t Q ..-1 Q Ul 3: ;j E-t 3: X ..c: 3: ~ , E-t , I , I >. (J) >, E-t ~ , ;j , ;j ;j .c: ~ .-l ~ I , ;j Cl E-t ~ E-t ~ E-t ~ E-t ~ ~ Z E-t .q< 0 0 CO 0 rl (J) 0 0 Lf) 0 CO rl \.0 Lf) \.0 Lf) 0 (J) rl 0 0 <:;J1 rl N Lf) Lf) r-- (Y) Lf) 0 <:;J1 Lf) Lf) .-l <:;J1 \.0 Lf) rl ~ 0 r-- \.0 Lf) Lf) CO \.0 \.0 CO <:;J1 Lf) <:;J1 Lf) 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Lf) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) CO (J) (J) (J) \.0 CO ,::C 0 N N N N N N N N N N r-- N ll.l CO ro CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO (Y) CO "d ~ '"Cl '"Cl :> '"Cl CO '"Cl H .-l "d :jI:: '"Cl H >, 0 >, H CO a:l H H >. CO CO ~ CO CO :> CO .. '"Cl CO CO :> ~ ~ :> (J) >, :> . CO :> ~ (J) ~ CO ~ (J) .-l (J) (J) >, 0 (J) ~ ~ H N H ~ ;j .-l .-l ~ ~ .-l H ;j CO CO CO ;j 0 .-l ;j ~ ;j >, CO 0 P-l ~ P-l 0 a:l CO 0 P-l ~ 0 CO P-l a:l P-l a:l :> a:l 0 a:l ~ (J) (J) ~ (J) s ~ (J) ~ t::rl H t::rl ~ ..-1 H ~ tyl CO ~ H tyl -.-1 CO 0 CO -.-I .-l 0 ..-1 CO ~ ..-1 CO CO ~ ~ '"Cl ~ ~ ..0 "d .-l .-l .-l P-l ~ .0 ~ CO .-l .0 ;j CO .0 .-l ~ .0 .-l Ul ;j ..-1 ~ ..-1 ;j Q ~ ;j ..-1 CO ;j (J) -.-1 Ul Q :> :> Q Q :> U) Q t::rl :> ~ CO CO Lf) 0 .-l 0 \.0 N (Y) <:;J1 0 N (Y) ~ (Y) Cl N 0 rl (J) rl CO 0 <:;J1 0 rl (Y) ~ r-- ~ \.0 0 .-I CO \.0 rl \.0 Lf) 0 N Lf) -.-1 (J) \.0 r-- r-- \.0 \.0 rl r-- r-- r-- r-- r-- :> r-- H (J) U) (J) +J ~ U) U) >, U ~ H +J H (J) .c: >. "d co (J) 0 (J) (J) "d -.-1 U) S (J) ~ >. U 3: .-l ~ ~ +J CO H (J) 0- H 0 0 CO H 3: ~ 0- (J) (J) .c: +J H H .-l (J) H U) H ~ U ~ :> a:l (J) ~ 0- CO ~ ..-1 (J) (J) ..-\ (J) U ~ 0 U Ul 0 ~ t::rl ~ H 0 E-t H .c: ~ H CO H Ul ..-1 CO ~ a:l H 0. U ~ a:l P-l '"Cl ~ +J U..-I S P-l ~ S 0 ~ 0 z CO -.-1 +J 0 H ..-1 H ~ +J -.-1 CO (J) 0 H :> H ~ +J (J) ~ .-l ~ (J) .-l ~ ~ ~ Ul ~ (J)-.-I U) +J tyl ..0 (J) 0 S ..0 ~ U H ~ CO ~~ ;j CO -.-1 ;j .c: H 0 ;j CO ;j 0 U) U 3: U) Q E-t U ::r: Q U) ::r: U (J) -l< U) H U) ~ ..-1 -.-1 (J) -.-1 .. H (J) .c: .-l tyl ~ H (J) ~ ~ (J) +J ~ 0 (J) .. .0 (J) tyl 0 0 H CO >, p::; Q CO 0 "d 0 Q Q U) ;j "d ::.::: .c: ;j a:l (J) ~ '-.. (J) CO W P-l .. .. tr' -.-1 .. .. H ~ .. "d ..-1 U .. H .. ~ ~ .. N .. H ~ CO ~ ~ U) CO 0 .. .. 0 +J ~ CO 0 ~ 0 (J) -.-I S U) U) U) +J ~ 0 ~ ~ t::rl ..-1 ~ H +J~ H 4--1 ~ (J) (J) ;j ;j +J '"Cl ~ :>.c: 0- +J ..-1 H )+-I .c: ~ ~ "d .c: +J 0 CO (J) 0 CO (J) H CO 0 0 0 0 (J) U ;j 0 a:l a:l1J U QW ::r: ::r: I-J I-J Z P-l U) U) 3: rl (Y) Lf) o rl N rl rl rl \.0 CO (J) N .q< r-- U) (J) U) :> (J)-.-I ~+J ..-1 co m+J ;j ~ a:l (J) U) (J) (J) U H H 0- (J) (J) ~~ o (J) U+J +J 4--1 -.-I o ~ H 0 (J)U ~+J CO ~ .c: (J) u S 0- ~ 0 ..-1 .-l .-l (J) .0:> ;j (J) QQ oj< (Y) rl ATrACHMENT 1 . . PROJECT PLAN SIGN ORDINANCE REVISION WORK PLAN PROJECT TITLE DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION - LARRY TONG. DENNIS CARRINGTON AND DAVID CHOY PREPARED BY SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 DATE ATTACHMENT 2.. REVISION REV. DATE DE!CRIPTION AND GOAf PROJECT DESCRIPTION The followinq work plan describes the Dublin Sign Ordinance Revision proiect. The Siqn Ordinance is the portion of the City of Dublin Zoninq Ordinance that requlates siqnaqe. PROJECT USER'S GOAL The Siqn Ordinance Revision proiect will improve business visibility and siqn permit processinq time. while maintaininq attractive and effective identification. ! PR~JECTBAGKGROUN! PROBLEM SUMMARY: A portion of the business community has identified: 1) the need to improve the Siqn Ordinance. 2) a willinqness to help identify the maior issues. and 3) a willinqness to help improve the Ordinance. The Planninq Staff has identified 4) the need to simplify the Ordinance. PROPOSED SOLUTION: The Planninq Staff. in coordination with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. should work with the business community to identify major issues and to propose revisions to the Siqn Ordinance. The Chamber has conducted a survey that identified a willingness by businesses to help - improve the Ordinance. A workshop was proposed. Staff will report the' results of the workshop and request the City Council to form a well-rounded Siqn Task Force. Staff. in coniunction with the Siqn Task Force. will identify the QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY: issues and options. prepare an analysis of \ proposed revisions (may include reviewinq requlations of other Tri-Valley cities) with recommendations. prepare any needed environmental review and present the item to the Planninq Commission for public hearinq and recommendation. and to the City Council for public hearinq and action. Staff will then have the adopted requlations copied and will implement them. , . . PROJECT OBJECTIVES TIME CONSTRAINTS: In March, 1993, the City Council adopted the new proiect as part of the 1993 Goals and Obiectives. It was assianed a hiah priority. The Chamber of Commerce completed its sian survey in April, 1993. The Senior Planner recruitment completed in Auqust. 1993. was a prerequisite in order to staff the proiect. It is desirable to complete this proiect by March, 1994. or sooner if possible, FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The anticipated costs for the proiect are minimal. Staff and Sian Task Force time may be the most limitinq resource. QUALITY STATEMENT: The reaulations need to result in attractive and effective identi- fication. They need to be easily understood and followed by both the business community and Staff. SPECIFICATION REFERENCE: ~OJECTPROGRESS. MILESTONE/PHASES DUE DATE/DURATION PROJECT START ~tember 29. 1993 1. Siqn Ordinance Workshop September 29. 1993 Report to City Council: 2. Siqn Task Force October 11 - 25. 1993 Sign Task Force: Mtg. #1 - Intro/ 3. Review Work Plan/Provide Input 2-3 wks (Nov. 1 - 15. 1993) 4. Preliminary Draft Staff Report 2-3 wks (Nov. 22 - Dee, 6. 1993) 5. Siqn Task Force: Mtq. #2 - Input 2-3 wks (Dec. 13 - 27. 1993) 6. Hearinq Draft Staff Report 2-3 wks (Jan. 3 -17.1994) 7. Siqn Task Force: Mtq,#3 - Input 2-3 wks (Jan. 24 - Feb. 7,1994) Staff Report; Environ. Review; 8. PC Public Hearinq; Recommend, February 7 - 21. 1994 9. City Council Public Hearinqs March 14 - April 11. 1994 PROJECT COMPLETION April 11, 1994 · RISK ANALYSIS · RISK #1 City Council may want to ask for additional volunteers to the Siqn Task Force. ALTERNATIVE A: Provide for City Council securinq additional volunteers to Siqn Task Force: extend deadlines. ALTERNATIVE B: Provide for City Council securinq additional volunteers to Siqn Task Force: but do not extend deadlines. ALTERNATIVE C: RISK #2 Siqn Task Force and/or Staff may need additional information/time to prepare the Staff Reports, ALTERNATIVE A: If Siqn Task Force resources not available. City Council to seek other volunteers: or revise scope of work plan: or extend deadlines. ALTERNATIVE B: If Staff resources not available (i.e., needed on other hiqh priority proiects. such as major development applications), extend deadlines or secure additional Staff resources. ALTERNATIVE C: RISK #3 ALTERNATIVE A: ALTERNATIVE B: ALTERNATIVE C: . { ~~ ~\L 3~ J..~ -8 ..1 ~\i. ~o . ~ \('; ~ ., -r - .. . .... - .~ ~ - -.. ..... . ." , 2~ I , , ~e. I I I , 1 I , , , I , . I I I I t ~ I -b~ t I I 2V' I , -'1:: - I I -.\ 2~ I - ~ -:l.:2. j \ I '"2.. 2~ ) I , 7.~ t ) -8 , ~ I t I I ~?: , I 1 ~ D..0 I ~ cL ~ ~-Z tU I -:z. :z - ~ "2 , "Z "'Z. ~ .:j \ ~~ ~~ - I A 0.- "\2 ~ I ~\() ~2 ~b~ ~~ I !r-- c:l.<31 i-- --z OeL -::z. -1.25 :::r ::t -J >''4: 2f- $V~ t:, .:1 · UJ. ~.~ U~ c....--1 \{'A 'C:. ~ -Z ~~ :t:~ >-'-f' \0- f u\U ! , l- ce <I: :r: (j z o - I- <I: N - z <I: (!) ~ o I- (j W J o CC a.. W I- eo :DI-() CD()W >-IW~ W'~O ~4:0Z T - WOR'BREAKDOWN STRt!rURE APOPlf;O ~.o CoPI ~ OF- -RSV' SSP R5Vl'SBP ~ ----- ~lbN O~ I ,.)AtJL.C. S.o , >1 &fJ O~,rJ~ MUJPA 5.1.D ~ f<.6fD~: C'2 '2..1-10 f2.eAP' t-J& 5.!.' { -l N011Gf, 5:2.0 1 A6(;tJ vA 5.1... l sTPFf Rt;fb~-r:. c.1. l.:;[" IZ€A.Dt t\.6- 5'.2."2- - J ~ l'lDrla:. 5".3.0 1 A6~NDA 5'3.l 5lAff REPoRT ~ Pc. VIl1"-61 eNvlF<.Dee. S .3.?- 1ieM~1 ~ ])RAVr 5r~rr RCfol<J 5'.4 ~MINA0( PRAt=-T STAFF K~OOP---r 55 t . r ~ To (}.; S[6fJ TASk. fo~ S.b M-A1e-1<\ft{.-S fog. <S\&fj oRPLfJA~ WCR.S::.SfbP 5.l i / . TASK LIST . T AS K# TASK DESCRIPTION DURATION PREDECESSOR(S) A.1 City Council adopts proiect March 1993 NA A.2 Chamber of Commerce Sian SUNev April 1993 NA A.3 Senior Planner Recruitment AUQust 1993 NA A.4 Report to City Council AUQust 1993 NA 1.0 Notice/Ads re: Sian Ord. Workshop A.1 - A.4 1.1 SiQn Ord. Workshop Room Lavout A.1-A.4 1.2 SiQn Ord, Workshop Preparation A.1-A.4 2 SiQn Ordinance Workshop Sept. 29. '93 1,0 - 1,2 3 Report to City Council: Sian Task Force Oct. 11-25 , '93 2 4.0 Aqenda Mati's for S.T.F. Mta, #1 3 4.1 Siqn Task Force Mtq. #1: Intro Nov. 1-15. '93 4,0 5 Prelim. Draft Staff Report Nov. 22-Dec. 6, 4,0 - 4.1 6,0 Aqenda Mati's for S.T.F. Mta. #2 5 6,1 Siqn Task Force Mtq. #2: Inout Dec. 13-27. '93 6,0 7 Hearinq Draft Staff Reoort Jan. 3 -17. '94 6,0 - 6.1 8.0 Aqenda Mati's for S.T.F. Mtq. #3 7 8.1 S.T.F. Mta, #3: Input Jan24-Feb7. '94 8,0 9.0 PC Staff Report/Environmental Review 8,0-8.1 9.1 Notice Environmental Review 8,0 - 8,1 10.0 Notice Planninq Commission Meetinq 9,0 - 9.1 10.1 PC Meetinq/Recommendation Feb. 7 - 21. '94 10,0 11.0 Notice City Council Meetina 10.0-10,1 11.1 Staff Report - City Council 1 st 11.0 11.2 City Council Mtq - 1 st Readina Mar. 14-28. '94 11,0-11,1 12.0 Staff Report - City Council 2nd 11,0-11,1 12,1 City Council Mtq - 2nd Readina Mar. 28-Apr. 11 12,0 13 Copyinq/lmplementinq 12,0 - 12,1 cQ r ,\) rl ~ -'J ~ 1', Q) L---; c ~ C'J \0 >0 ( \ ro..c: 00 do Co.. G\. co I\J ~ ~ kJ r:.. \./J ~ ~ ~ ~ rv \-\ -:f ~~ C) --.... ~ S~ \.::J 3- ~ ~ \0 c: 1~ v lIJ ,---- l~ lIJ G c ~ Q) <.:.> .... 0 '"0 ~ '"0 <! r-.. ~ a. 0 0 :I: I (J) '-.S ~ '2 ~ 20:: ,.... --> f-o -0 '-.J cJ z 03$ '7 ..... =>w ~ 0(,) lIJ a ~ - lIJ 'f) L1.2 o Q) ~ Oct Q) .s CI) Q.lIJ -< >-2 >::1 1-- f-CO ~ _0 -..:) ...l (,)0:: c... 0 3 '-' 2 (!) ~ (J) L --..) ~ ~ lIJ 2> r:- lIJ ~ Q) Q 5 'en E ::1 ro co2 ~ a.. o J: C/) :::::: 20: ::iO CO$ :Jw au L.l.2 0<( >2 .....- _0 uo: o 2: C) - C/) ,~ r:J Q) n =s 0- v c > 5 JlJ' IV -..... \l) LB ~ .. ctl ~ ~ c- o Lr,~ 0 E:()1 \./> - ~ ~ ~ CS t..>.:, (\j c~ V) t. , ~ 0( c, rl;, \ Q \ ~ ~ (' v- C'(Jl\fl v'~ r' '0 ~ N (Y) \ ~ 'l" ~ ~ \.: C'- h;~ [) 0" Jr <0:.- Ct; 6O~ 6 q ~ "', '.~ c (X) ..) ./ " ) ~ -..!. J "' '" c2 "1 \~ ~ - :1 "0 () ~ ( ~, '-'" ') ~l ---::. ~ ~ - -:: - :"'Sl l- i ~ ~ - ~~Q/)~ - -3 ~ --l " C1 v i J f:' ~ 3J -1 Q ~ -:> 11 <::::b P r" ~cJ d I / ~ ~ "'" 01 tt ~ ~ ~ rJ ci ;V) "- ~ ~ ~ <:--..~ C'l \) J \ ~ c;:j \S) J Q) . 0 ~ ... '" r ~ ~ ./ ~ "'0 "'0 <::::::>.- -../ <t r- r ~ ../ -- ~ 6 ...J ~ J -../ c) '+- III o ~ Q) .;: Q.lIl >::3 ...-aJ ~ ru 2 3 \,\; i '- ~ 4- ~ u ~ '\) ~ :) ~ 0 .0 1 ? Q /'-. ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ./ .... - ..;< ~ c;,J III III Q) c:: Q) 'Iii E ::l ctl aJZ \ ~\ ~ -, 0:J ~ Q ~ ~ ~ (:;f.I ~ I \ (j"" cr-:::- ,fj ~G ~ -:+.. " . \' vc ) \~ G' ~,~ ~ " ~ fA ~ ~ ~ Vl '~ ~ ) -.;;::J , ~ .~~ . \J '" '\ ,;: - Q) E ctl Z . .- N C'0 ~ 0 ..- N C'0 ~ U1 <.0 r-- ex:> en U1 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ,-.. E-< Z .... ~ p.. Ul CI.l -< Ul ....1 p.. '-' ~CJ- ~ ~ - ~ Iv') ~ 0 Q) ;S \J) \1\ J c: l >0 C\J CJ'-.... ('<J ::.r ell..c: ~ 'I ,> Co.. ~ ~ c;J N .' oJ ..-0 \I<> N 0:J ~ ~ ) ..J \i' '""- <.} '" , ~ ~ Ql ~ ) .- -I:::: ~ :::, ~ ............ 6 <- 0 \:.) ~ (f) \\ (f) t Q) ... cz "C ~ "C ~ V <( ~ ~ a. ~ J -;- 0 ~ ,-... :r: .:::J {:: en ';z: ~ 0 2: a: ~ r-. - 0 E- ....J Y ~ Z cas "-' J' ..... ::)w .... t::::: < < ~ Ou (f) 3 - (f) 0 LL.2 0 Q) ~ w Q) .S '~ -' 0<:( r.[J s. CI) c,(f) <::, >-2: >:l .3 r-- I-OJ 0,... w _0 0 ~ ....l ua: ~ 0 2: C) - en (f) (f) Q) Q) c: (f) E ,c/} :l ell ~ OJ2 ~ C> W <:> c;., ~ -<J "- .J 'f "3 - J" '0 ~ "- ~ C} (d -< "J 0 \~ U-- Q) :<.. vI. ,J 0 ~ E ~ 0 - -:2 - If~ -.:> ell --- , ~ 2 -:-:-..:..:.. \,Q W . . 0 ..- N ('t') .q- LO ..- N ('t') .q- LO (0 r"- eo en ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-