Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 SignOrdRevision (2) . . . CITY 01' DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATEL Auqust 22, 1994 Public Hearing: PA 93-062 City of Dublin Sign Ordinance Revision REPORT PREPARED BY: ~ennis carrington, senior Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: ~ttachment l:~Excerpt from Draft Ordinance regarding Non-Conforming and Illegal Signs 2~Excerpt from Draft Ordinance regarding Temporary Political 9igns 3: ~Shamrock Village plot plan 4: ~ugust 15, 1994, memo to City / Council from Elizabeth Silver . Attachment Attachment ,Attachment RECOJIMElIDATXON: -tr $f . 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Open public hearing and hear staff presentation Take testimony from the Public Question staff and the Public Close public hearing and deliberate Waive reading and adopt Draft Sign Ordinance Provide policy direction regarding the vehicular sign issue FINANCIAL STATEMENT: After adoption, staff time will be required to inventory all illegal and abandoned signs and to abate those signs as required by section 5491.1 of the Business and Professions Code. DESCRIPTION: The Draft Sign ordinance has been a joint effort of the Sign Ordinance Task Force, the Planning Commission and Staff. The revisions to the ordinanoewil:l ,enhance sign visibility, allow the more flexible location offreesta.nding signs, banners, flags and temporary promotional signs and simplify the sign permit process. In addition, regulations relating to vehicular signs, open house signs, freeway signage and illegaland'non-conforming signs have been made more flexible and clear. The City Council at i~s August 8, 1994, Public Hearing voted to introduce the Draft Sign Ordinance. At that public hearing the City Council modified the Draft Sign:erdinance recommended for adoption by the Planning commission as follows: NON-CONFORMING SIGNS Modify Section 8.08.21U, Non-Conforming Signs (see Attachment 1), to delete subsections A, B, and.e and substitute the following language: All signs and their sqpportingmembers that were rendered non- conforming by enactment of Ordibance 7-86, including signs previously approved through a Variance+and/or eonditional Use Permit process and were not brought into compiiance with the provisions of this Chapter on or prior to three (3) years from the effective date of ordinance 7- 86 and thus became illegal,.n4any signs made non-conforming by this ordinance, shall be considered to be ~egal non-conforming signs. TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS At the time of the AugtlSt 8, 1994, hearing a Councilmember aSked why the allowable size of political signs was changed from sixteen ::::-::~-~~-~---"-----"-----------~~;-~--~~~-~~-"-----~t:~3;~~-~~f~:"-- FILE~ . . square feet to eight square feet. Staff should have pointed out that the Draft ordinance would not change the allowable size of temporary political signs. The existing Sign ordinance allows a total of 16 square feet for both sides of the sign while the Draft ordinance proposes 8 square feet per side, resulting in the same size sign. On the basis of the discussion with Staff, the council modified section 8.08.140(K) (3) (see Attachment 2), Temporary POlitical Signs, to allow Temporary Political Signs to have 16 square feet of area per side for individual signs instead of 16 square for both sides as recommended by the Planning Commission. The effect of this modification will be to double the size of temporary political signs from what is currently allowed. VEHICULAR SIGNS The City council also directed Staff to investigate methods of encouraging owners of vehicles which are used for advertising purposes to park in existing parking spaces which have been placed according to approved plot plans in shopping centers. Of specific concern was the parking lot of the Shamrock Village Shopping Center. Staff has obtained a copy of the Shamrock Village Shopping Center plot plan, which shows the approved parking plan established in 1961 when the shopping center was built (see Attachment 3). The plot plan shows parking spaces adjacent to Amador Valley Boulevard as being diagonal to the street rather than the current striping of parking spaces parallel to the boulevard. Staff inspected the parking lot and found wheel stops along the frontage that are consistent with the diagonal parking spaces shown on the original plot plan. The vehicles used for signage are currently registered but are parked across parking space lines. Several options are available to the City Council (none of which would involve changes to the Draft Sign Ordinance) to address this issue: 1. The Zoning Ordinance contains prOV1S1ons in sections 8-63.0, 8-63.1 and 8-63.9 which require that plans showing the location of all required parking and loading spaces be submitted and approved and that the maintenance of the parking and loading spaces shown on the plan be a continuing obligation of the owner. The maintenance of the parking and loading spaces includes the continuance of the layout as approved as well as the physical maintenance which would include repaving and restriping. The Shamrock Village Shopping Center has a parking plan which was approved as part of the building plans when the center was built in 1961. The current striping layout has placed parallel parking spaces in the location of the diagonal parking spaces shown on the approved plan. An inspection of the parking lot showed that bumper-stops are still in place for diagonal parking spaces in the area where parallel spaces are now located. The City Council could direct the Zoning Enforcement Officer to work with the property owners of the Shamrock Shopping Center to return the layout of the parking spaces to that shown on the approved plan. This would include placing diagonal parking spaces adjacent to Amador Plaza Boulevard. All existing development projects are subject to these Zoning Ordinance provisions. 2. In order to require vehicles to park within properly marked parking spaces, the city Council could take the following actions: A. The City Council could direct Staff to prepare a resolution finding that Vehicle Code section 21107.8 permits the city to find that privately owned parking lots in shopping centers are held open for public parking. This action would make such lots subject to general provisions of the Vehicle Code. This primarily allows for the enforcement of Vehicle Code violations. A separate local ordinance would be required to addr~ss parking. -2- . . B. The local ordinance amending the Municipal Code would need to require that vehicles parked in privately owned parking lots in shopping centers be properly parked within the confines of parking spaces as shown on an apprDved parking plan. The ordinance would also need to require that they be parked no longer than 72 hours (or any other time period the city Council may determine). The resolution and ordinance would affect both existing and future development projects. In order to comply with Vehicle Code requirements the property owner would also need to post the property. 3. The City council could direct staff to modify the site Development Review Guidelines adopted by the City Council in May of 1992 to discourage the placing of parallel parking spaces adjacent to public roadways in private parking lots. The guidelines would affect future development projects. since the ability to address parking areas is separate from the Sign Ordinance, staff recommends that the city council provide policy direction regarding the options available. Staff recommends that the city council conduct a public hearing, waive the reading and adopt the Draft Sign Ordinance with direction to Staff to make such editorial changes to the Sign Ordinance as are necessary for clarity. /93062sr8 -3- . . Zoning Administrator, the application may be referred to the Planning Commission. A Sign Exception may be granted when the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission makes the following findings based on evidence in the record: A. The proposed Sign Exception conforms as closely as practicable to the regulations pertaining to sign size, height, number and location; and B. The proposed Sign Exception is consistent with the intent of providing attractive and effective identification and other purposes of the sign regulations; and C. Either: 1. strict adherence to the sign regulations does not allow attractive and effective identification of the site or practical functioning of the business because of the site's location or configuration, or because the proposed business or use is obscured from view by adjacent buildings and/or vegetation; or 2. the architectural style, materials or construction elements of the building are such that a sign placed in conformance with this chapter would conflict with other aesthetic considerations. D. The procedure for processing a Sign Exception shall be as set forth in Sections 8-93.0 through 8-93.4 VARIANCE. ARTICLE V. NON-CONFORMING AND ILLEGAL SIGNS Sec. 8.08.210 NON-CONFORMING SIGNS. -- r - A. * All signs and their supporting members that were rendered non-conforming by enactment of Ordinance 7-86, including signs previously approved through a Variance and/or Conditional Use Permit process and were not brought into compliance with the provisions of this Chapter on or prior to three (3) years from the effective date of ordinance 7-86 and thus became illegal, and any signs made non-conforming by this ordinance, shall be considered to be legal non-conforming signs. m~1 . . D. House Numbers And Name Plates. House numbers, name plate or identification of house members (provided sign does not exceed two (2) square feet maximum area), mail box identification, street names, "no- trespass" signs, and other warning signs. E. Lotterv Sians. Signs for the California State Lottery approved by the Lottery Commission for display by Lottery Game Retailers. F. Memorial Tablets. Memorial Tablets or signs identifying a benefactor, a location of historical interest, or a statue or monument. G. Murals/Artwork. Murals or other artistic paintings on walls, provided no logos, emblems or other similar devices, sign copy or illustrations of activities associated with uses on the premises or in the vicinity are included in the mural or painting. H. Official Public Sians. Official Public Signs. I. On-Site Temporarv For Sale Or Lease Sians. All On-Site Temporary For Sale or Lease Signs shall: 1. not exceed a maximum area of sixteen (16) square feet per side; 2. be limited to one (1) such sign placed for each one hundred (100) feet of street frontage, up to a maximum of two (2) signs per parcel; 3. have a maximum height of eight (8) feet; 4. state that the property is for sale, lease or exchange by the owner or his or her agent and the name address and phone number of the owner or agent and/or agency and directions; 5. be constructed of wood, plywood, metal or other rigid material; and 6. not be placed on a private or public right-of-way. J. Private Recreational Sians. property and which cannot be properties. Signs which are within private recreational seen from a public street or adjacent K. Temporarv Political Sians. shall: Temporary political signs provided they 1. Be removed within 10 calendar days following the election; and 2. Be placed on private property; and - fc; 3. Be no more than sixteen (16) square feet per side in area per individual sign and up to eighty (80) square feet of maximum aggregate area per lot; and 4. Not be placed within the public right-of-way or within 660 feet of and visible from the right of way of Interstate 580~or Interstate 680. ATTACIIBT 2. ~":: .~~ .0" . " I .~, .~ !~~ "~., , ""~ ~ ~ ~~ ~rJ ~ 1', ".. '" "- .. .t y7 ".. ,., i ~ ,.:::~/. '.,". ~ J. ~--J"~J..,~~t:'.,... " t.. ....~.......\~.....,....~"Y.t.~i. /J,." J . . . '" I.. ~.. . " ~', -- ~ "~".'~'..~\. ' , '" ,'"'' """,~ :,-- \ \, ~., .L{.~ -, '\.'~'..:.0:;-<;~Jr= - ' ~ \' , , . l r ~ H ! .. I ...'.. ' ,~ .. , ' I I I I l' I ,^, '\ .',' I I : I ~ ~ 'J ,. \\\ ,'.., 't 1-1""'4.'0 6~ ~ 1.\.\ ~ /, I f I I -1 I ' 4 L ~ r.'.. .p. ~Q,'" I I l\ 1 r ,.; I ,t '.. ~~~:. -,'" P ,0/ ~ ~1~~7r ~:J~.". ~ . ~ ,""' ., _",1:)0 cns'l1"t1~J.. '~". '''f : J ~ , : 1 : i ~ , l ;] :I .. I' : ~: ..~ : ' ~ i r I : . II ' f i ~ t 1 ' . } .. -L~ . ..,,:~. .. -: ;.~ ~.~- ~..... -- ~ -, " " I if I! !t .. '4: :r ' ,011; ': , · 4 I" J ~; . >~. ~~ Iii ii i I ,ill liJlff~' ~ \,;};, ,,;: . , , . . ,;;. . ~ ..i~ .:~ H ,I. ,. ,J ~ .f:' .... r ~ "'. '. " 'II .! .... .~ .,'. . . , '1'. , , I A A. , . h ,I u~T,.,-->~ ~.. , \~.':. \ "... ." .._,,\....~.. -' . 'l :. '~,-~ \ 1 1 - \. . ARs. NA VB. RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON A Professional Law Corporation Michael R. Nave StlM:n R. Meyers E1izllbeth H. Sit vcr Miehael S. R.bad iCenneth .4,. Wiliion Gateway Plaza m Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, 0. 94577 Telephone: (510) 351-4300 Fac:simiJe: (510) 351-4481 Peninsula Offi~e 1220 Howard Avenue, Suite 250 Burlingame, CA 94010-4211 Telepltone: (415) 348-7130 Facsimile: (415) 342-0886 Clifford F. Campbell Michael F. Rodriquez l<alld~n Faubion Wendy A. .R.otl~rt.li David W. Skinner StEMm T. Matt&.$ Rlck w. 111m Vetonica A. Nebb Santa Rosa Otlice Of l;tIunsc:l: Andrea J. SllltmIlin MEKOl'UNDUX 5S.S F'uth Srn:cr, Suite 230 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 54.5-8009 (707) 545-6617 (FAX) Reply to: S:m~ 11'0; Council Membe:rs DATE: August 15, 1994 FROM: Elizabeth H. Silver, city Attorney rtE: Vehicles Displaying Signs Ilnproperly Parked in private Lots I . Background At the last City Council meeting on August B, 1994, while you considered amending the sign ordinance, concern "'as eA"pressed regarding two dilapidated cars permanently parked in the parking lot of a shopping center. These vehicles are used as advertising "billboards" for shops in the privately owned center. Both vehicles are validly registered. However, one ie: improperly parked and takes up two spaces. II. Issue May the city properly regulate vehicles which display advertisements which are improperly parked in private commercial lots? III. ~rief Answer Probably yes. While traffic regulation may only be controlled by local government to the extent delegated by the state, restrictions on private parking are a proper exerciSQ of local police power which only incidentally affects traffic control and safety. A local ordinance may be enacted (1) to require cars to park within lines and/or (2) to prohibit cars from parking in the same spot for more than a specified number of hours. Aft 4' . . TO: FROM:: RE: DATE; PAGE: Council Members Elizabeth H. Silver, City Attorney Vehicles Displaying Signs Improperly Parked in Private Lots August 15, 1994 2 IV. ~iscussion Traffic safety, control and regulation is preempted by state law. Local governments may only regulate to the extent delegated by the state. See Rumford v. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545, 550, 183 Cal.Rptr. 73, 75. However, the Attorney General states that the "Vehicle Code does not preclude regulations enacted for non-traffic purposes which only incidentally affect th~ preempted field." 75 Op. Cal.Atty. Gen. 239, 244 (1992}, citing People v. Mueller (1970) S Cal.App. 3d 949, 954, 8a Cal.Rptr. ~57, 160. This opinion concerned a city ordinance which prohibited the parking of particular vehicles in private driveways, streets, and commercial parking lots. Because our concern is based upon the "non-traffic purpose" of a possible improper advertising sign and improperly parking in two spaces, regulation of the vehicles may only incidentallY affect traffic safety and control. Generally, courts balance the demand for statewide uniformity against the need for local govGrnment to be able to handle particular problems. See People v. Deacon (~978) B7 Cal.App.3rd Supp. 29, 32, 151 Cal.Rptr. 277, 279. Because the cars at issue are parked in a private parking lot, are not ~oved on highways, and probably do not affect traffic safety, the need for statewide uniformity is low. In contrast, the cars present a localized issue which city government can manage effectively. Therefore, it appears that regulation of the cars would only incidentally affect the pr~empted field of traffic control, and it is a proper subject for local regulation. With regard to private parking lots,l VQhicle Code S 21107.8 permits cities to find that privately owned lots within the city are held open for public parking. These parking lots may th~n b~ made SUbject to certain general provisions of the Vehicle Code. The provisions to which the lots become subject to deal almost 1 Because the issue involves a parking lot, the local regulation authorized by Vehicle Code S 22507 (local regulation of streets or highways) is not applicable. 2 These lots would then become. subject to Vehicle Code S 22350 (speed laws), S 23~03 (reckless driving), S 23109 (speed contests), and Division 16.5 (Off-highway vehicles). In addition, the lots are covered by ~ 22507.8 (disabled persons) and S 22500.1 (fire lanes). ,-. ,. , . ., . .J .,- ~ . II . . . '1'0: FROK: RE: DATE: PAGE: council Members Elizabeth H. silver, City Attorney Vehicles Displaying Signs Improperly Pa.rked in Private Lots August 15, 1994 3 exclusively with hazardous driving. The Attorney General states that this "indicates a legislative intent not to preempt local legislation in the field of traffic regulation and control . . . as to matters of parking in such faoilities." 7S Op.Cal.Atty.Gen. 239, 249 (1992). Therefore, regulating the advertisements on the cars as a nuisance and requiring the cars to park within marked lines would probably be PQrmissible under this interpretation of Vehicle Code S 21107.8. In order for Vehicle Code S 21107.8 to apply, the city must, by ordinance or resolution, find and declare thai: the privately owned parking lot is Itgenerally held open for Use of the pUblic for purposes of vehicular parking. n See Vehicle Code S 21107.8 (a) . Since this lot is for a shopping center, we would be able to meet this requirement. Also, the owner or operator of the parking lot must post a notice at each entrance notifying users that the lot is SUbject to public traffic regulations and control. See Vehicle Code S 21107.8(b). After the notice is posted, enforcement may begin. v. COlle Ius ion The City Council may adopt an ordinance or resolution finding that a Shopping center's private parking lot is generally held open for public parking. This would ~ake such lots subject to certain general provisions of the Vehicle Code regarding hazardous driving. Because the state has not fully regulated private parking lots, the city may then ~nact controls regarding parked cars with signs including a requirc~ent that cars be parked within the marked lines and a requirement that cars be parkea no longer than 72 hours (or any other time period). These regulations would only incidentally affect state traffic controls. Very truly yours, MEY~S, NAVE, RIB1\.CK, SILVER &: WILSON '--;/ 0'0 A IJ Ii · ~ ~,-,tvL.... Elizabeth H. silv r'~ EHS: jde j;\wpd\mnrsw\114\memO\Ol\prkng.lms J J