HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 SignOrdWkshp (2)
(.
.
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 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-