HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Sign RegulationsARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
The ARC should receive the staff presentation, take public comments, and conduct a working study session
with staff. The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to re‐introduce the Sign Regulations Update to the ARC,
particularly the newer members who were not on the Commission at the time of the prior study session.
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND, DISCUSSION TOPICS, AND NEXT STEPS
The attached Summary Paper serves as the staff report for the study session. The report starts by providing
background on the Update and concludes with the next steps of the process. The middle of the report will be
the focus of the discussion as it summarizes the significant changes to the previous Ordinance and also
highlights proposed new sections to include best practices, better graphics, and consistency with the Reed v.
Gilbert case.
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The Commissioners should all bring their copy of the 2004 Sign Regulations (as provided in the
orientation binder) to the meeting and staff and the Chair will facilitate a working session using
the outline of the summary paper and staff presentation to guide the discussion.
4.0 ATTACHMENTS
4.1 – Summary Paper: Significant Changes to the Sign Ordinance
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
For more information contact: Doug Davidson at 781‐7177 or ddavidson@slocity.org
Meeting Date: March 18, 2019
Item Number: 2
Packet Page 57
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 58
1
BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department is pursuing a comprehensive update of the City’s Sign
Regulations. The purpose of the update is to provide regulations which result in sign installations
that are compatible with the built environment, eliminate the potential for visual blight from
incompatible sign installations, and allow for adequate business identification. Existing sections
to be updated include size, placement, height, number of signs allowed, allowed illumination and
materials, sign types, review procedures, and exempt and prohibited sign types. Staff worked with
project consultant Dyett & Bhatia, to gather feedback on concepts and draft language to include in
the working draft of the Sign Regulations Update for further review and refinement.
Issues and Options Report – Summary of Recommendations
Based on review of current regulations, a survey of existing sign installations, and stakeholder
feedback, Dyett & Bhatia, prepared an Issues and Options Report which presented the
following summary of recommendations, which highlights the following key themes and
recommended changes to be addressed in the update:
Key Issues:
Increase clarity about requirements and the basis for making discretionary decisions.
Ensure that signage is appropriate for and enhances architectural and district character.
Provide increased flexibility that allows for variations in site and building design.
Reflect current sign technology and promote energy conservation.
Improving coordination with other municipal requirements and regulations applicable to
signage.
Ensure consistency with applicable State and federal requirements including, but not
limited to, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
Recommendations to Address Key Issue Areas:
Revise definitions to ensure that terms used in the current Sign Regulations and by staff
when reviewing applications appear in the list of Definitions (e.g., channel letters, can
lights, cabinet sign, etc.).
Establish and clarify (with graphics) rules for sign measurement that are easy to understand
and that accommodate content that does not neatly fit inside a rectangle.
Revise the requirements for window signs to address certain problems, including signs that
blocks views into the interior of buildings by covering an excessive amount of window
area.
Establish more specific findings that will clarify bases for approving deviations from
standards, including consideration of an approach that allows Staff approval of limited
dimensional variations and requires Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval
only for more substantial modifications. Revised findings should clearly distinguish
adjustments from variances.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 59
2
Augment provisions for sign programs to include more detail about objectives of sign
programs, applicability, and procedures for modification.
Identify the Director’s authority to publish separate requirements concerning the format of
and information required in sign permit applications, rather than providing detailed
application requirements in the regulations.
Include a statement of principles for sign regulation that is the basis for making
discretionary decisions, including approving deviations from standards. Including this
statement of principles in the guidelines for signs, as well.
Revise the Signage Guidelines to incorporate principles for sign regulation in order to
provide direction to ensure that signage is consistent with the City’s aesthetic values.
Clearly distinguishing the guidelines from standards. Include provisions in the Sign
Regulations that state how Guidelines are used to review applications. Identify guidelines
that may be more appropriate to incorporate as standards.
Revise provisions for temporary signs as necessary to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Reed and incorporate provisions that will be easy and inexpensive to
implement.
Revise application requirements and other applicable provisions to require design review
applications to indicate where signage will be located on buildings and sites.
Improve provisions to clarify requirements applicable to signs on landmarked buildings or
within historic districts, with cross-references to other applicable Municipal Code
provisions, policies, and/or guidelines to improve ease of use.
Revise standards that unreasonably restrict the placement of signs in order to avoid the
need for unnecessary variances. Examples of standards to potentially revise include those
that restrict the placement of signs to the facade with a public entrance, even where entrance
does not face public right of way, as well as standards prescribing the setbacks required for
the visibility triangle.
Revise as necessary to ensure that standards reflect current sign technology and promote
energy conservation.
The ARC provided initial feedback and direction on the Issues and Options Report in 2016. The
Draft 2019 Sign Ordinance addresses these key issues and recommendations and updates the
Ordinance for best practices, graphics, clarification of terms and process, and consistency with the
Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision.
What Does the Reed Decision Mean for the City of SLO?
The Reed v. Town of Gilbert (135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015)) case has major implications for regulating
signs in jurisdictions across the country. The Reed case made it clear that sign codes must comply
with the First Amendment by being content-neutral. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an
ordinance which makes distinctions between political, ideological, and temporary directional signs
is content-based on its face and violates the First Amendment unless it is narrowly tailored to meet
a compelling governmental interest. A sign is content-based if it applies to particular speech
because of the idea or message expressed.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 60
3
The Court’s ruling in Reed means that any sign ordinance with different rules for signs based on
the type of message that the sign expresses is content-based. For instance, a sign ordinance that
exempts political signs from regulation but limits the size and duration allowed for temporary
events signs is content-based. Commercial signage, however, may continue to be regulated more
stringently than non-commercial signage even after the Court’s decision in Reed. Many sign
ordinances across the country have updated their sign ordinances in response to this case.
Temporary signs in residential zones are a noteworthy example of how the Reed decision has
affected the City’s Sign Regulations Update. However, the content-neutral theme of the Reed
decision has informed the update of the entire Ordinance. As allowed under Reed, the revised
Ordinance retains content-neutral regulations on size, materials, lighting, moving parts, and
portability.
The significant changes of the Draft Ordinance are highlighted in the next section.
DRAFT ORDINANCE – SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Temporary Signs
The existing Ordinance standards for temporary signs in residential zones were consolidated into
one section and regulated similarly for time, place, and manner to address the Reed case. The
revised draft regulations allow up to a total of three temporary signs, such as yard sale signs, real
estate signs, and political campaign signs in residential zones. The signs shall not be in place for
more than 90 days per calendar year and are limited to a total of five square feet in size. Temporary
signs in non-residential zones are similarly addressed. Temporary signs in all zones continue to
be exempt from obtaining a sign permit if they meet the standards.
Prohibited Signs
Three additional types of prohibited signs are proposed in the updated Ordinance: roof signs,
internally illuminated cabinet signs, and electronic message center signs.
A roof sign is defined as “a sign where any part of the sign is on or over any portion of the roof,
eave, or parapet of the building.” Roof signs are proposed to be prohibited because they are “add-
ons” or afterthoughts for buildings that were not designed to integrate signage into their
architecture. By extending above and breaking the roof plane of the building, they are not
architecturally compatible with a building’s design and would detract from the character of the
City’s built environment. The existing sign code only allowed for roof signs via exception findings.
An electronic message sign (EMS) is defined as, “a sign that uses digital display to present variable
message displays by projecting an electronically controlled pattern and which can be programmed
to periodically change the message display.” EMSs are by their very nature, attention-getting
devices, particularly to the traveling public. Other attention getting devices are expressly
prohibited in the ordinance (existing and proposed). The potential safety issues associated with
distracting drivers and the potential aesthetic impacts to community character are the key reasons
for the proposed prohibition.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 61
4
An internally illuminated cabinet sign consists of a frame and face with a translucent message
panel. Such signs have been prohibited downtown for years under the existing ordinance and the
proposed prohibition would extend City-wide. Sign cabinets that light up the whole background
can be too bright and impact the nighttime environment. Individually illuminated letters, also
called “push through type” signs where only the lettering or symbols are illuminated are more
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed ordinance does allow for push through
signs and defines them having “a backing or case of opaque material with punch-thru letters so
only the letters or business symbol are illuminated.”
Sign Standards – Size, Number, Placement per Zone
Two main changes are proposed for the Sign Standards section. First, the categories of commercial
signs have been reduced and combined to aid simplification and readability. The Tourist
Commercial, Retail Commercial, Service Commercial, and Community Commercial, along with
Public Facilities, Business Park, and Manufacturing standards are all in one category with the same
number and size of signs allowed. Office, Downtown Commercial, and Neighborhood
Commercial zone sign requirements remain in separate categories due to their unique
characteristics.
The second significant proposed change is the size and number of allowed signs per zone. The
maximum allowable signage in some commercial zones is proposed to decrease to recognize a
more appropriate size and number of signs in commercial settings. In the CR (Commercial Retail)
zone, maximum signage is proposed as three tenant signs up to a total of 100 square feet, as
opposed to the current standards of four signs up to a maximum of 200 square feet. The CD
(Commercial Downtown) zone is recommended similarly, but with a recommended total
maximum signage of 50 sq. ft. The CT (Commercial Tourist), CS (Commercial Service), and CN
(Commercial Neighborhood) zones are also reduced in total square footage but have more
flexibility with an increase in the total number of signs (3 v. 2). The table below shows a
comparison per zone between the existing and proposed sign standards.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 62
5
TABLE
Zoning
Current Sign Standards Proposed Sign Standards
Total Number of
Signs Allowed
Maximum
Cumulative Sign
Area Per Tenant
Space
Total Number of
Signs Allowed
Maximum
Cumulative Sign
Area Per Tenant
Space
All Residential
Zones
1 per street
frontage 20 sq. ft. 1 per street
frontage 20 sq. ft.
Office 2 per tenant
space 50 sq. ft. 2 per tenant
space 50 sq. ft.
C-N 2 per tenant
space 50 sq. ft. 2 per tenant
space 30 sq. ft.
C-R 4 per tenant
space 200 sq. ft.
3 per tenant
space 100 sq. ft.
C-C 2 per tenant
space 100 sq. ft.
C-T 2 per tenant
space 200 sq. ft.
C-S and M 2 per tenant
space 200 sq. ft.
PF 2 per tenant
space 100 sq. ft.
C-D 4 per tenant
space 200 sq. ft.
3 per tenant
space
50 sq. ft.
C/OS and AG 2 per tenant
space 50 sq. ft. 2 per tenant
space 25 sq. ft.
The sign permit requests the City has received over the years are typically well below the number
and size allowed by the ordinance. The allowance for four 4 signs totaling 200 square feet in
commercial zones is not feasible to achieve on most commercial sites or buildings. The graphic
below shows some visual comparisons of the existing Sign Regulations and the proposed standards
for a typical commercial storefront.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 63
6
COMPARISON GRAPHIC
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 64
7
Sign Design Standards – Architectural Compatibility and Quality Materials
The Update proposes to bolster the design standards for signs. Each section on specific sign types
(monument, wall, projecting, etc.) has a design statement requiring architectural compatibility and
durable, high quality materials. In addition, there is an overall Design section which expands on
architectural compatibility and quality of materials, while adding standards on scale and
proportion, historic districts, specific zones, and referencing the Community Design Guidelines.
Multi-Tenant Sign Programs
This section has been modified to reference “multi-tenant” signage instead of the “shopping
center” terminology contained in the previous Ordinance. For larger commercial and mixed-use
projects, multi-tenant sign program reviews are intended to establish a coordinated and uniform
signage design compatible with the development. These programs should result in signs
compatible with the development, complementary to project architecture, and coordinated among
the tenants. Additional language has been supplied to clarify the intent of sign programs.
Process for Sign Approvals, Exceptions from Standards
Under the recently adopted Zoning Regulations Update, the ARC makes a recommendation to the
Community Development Director or Planning Commission instead making of a final decision.
The number of sign types requiring separate architectural review has been significantly reduced,
as most of these circumstances have been integrated into the Ordinance as standards, exemptions,
prohibitions and clarified under new or modified definitions.
Exceptions to sign standards could be approved if specific findings are made that unusual
circumstances apply to the site or buildings, such as historic architecture, intervening obstructions,
or building configuration. Many sign approvals simply require a building permit for installation.
The Director will determine the level of review for exceptions, multi-tenant programs, or other
sign proposals which may require architectural review.
Miscellaneous Other Changes
The purpose statement has been strengthened with findings that the Sign Regulations are necessary
to protect community character, free speech rights, public safety, and avoid visual clutter. Also
added is a “General Rules and Interpretation” section which clarifies fundamental requirements,
enforcement authority, message neutrality, and how the Ordinance is implemented. A strong
purpose statement and rules for interpretation are best practices for ordinances in general, and
especially so for sign ordinances in the wake of the Reed decision.
Murals are included in the previous Ordinance with guidelines and standards, although they are
defined as Public Art with no specific standards except to receive ARC approval. The revised
Ordinance deletes all references to murals and relies on the City’s Public Art process. The City
Public Art manual requires review by the Art Jury and architectural review for murals and other
forms of public art.
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 65
8
Window signs are small pedestrian-scale signs that should not obscure the view into a business.
The window sign standards have been revised to establish a time limit as temporary signs (30 days)
and defined as signs painted, affixed, or hung within 36 inches of the window.
NEXT STEPS
This Summary Paper will be used as the primary tool for public outreach efforts to gather
comments from the ARC, sign industry representatives, Downtown SLO, Chamber of Commerce,
and other interested citizen groups. The recommendations from the public will inform the draft
update of the Sign Regulations.
Once the draft regulations are formally developed, the ARC will formally review the revised
Ordinance, hold a public hearing, and forward a recommendation. Following ARC review of the
draft regulations and any needed revisions, the City Council will consider ARC recommendations
on the proposed updated regulations for adoption. Staff anticipates the update will be completed
by June/July 2019.
Schedule
Public Outreach – March, April 2019
ARC study session – March 18, 2019
ARC public hearing to formulate recommendation to City Council – April/May (TBD)
City Council Public Hearing for Adoption – June/July, 2019 (TBD)
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 66