title
PLANNING COMMISSION - STUDY SESSION: DISCUSSION OF CITYWIDE SIGN CODE UPDATE
body
Meeting Date: September 25, 2024
Contact Person/Dept: Emily Stadnicki, Current Planning Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Public Hearing: [ ] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Fiscal Impact: Yes [ ] No [X] General Fund: Yes [ ] No [X]
Public Hearing: [ ] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: (Email) Public Notifications - Planning Commission (09/18/2024), Meetings and Agendas - Planning Commission (09/18/2024); (Posted) City website (09/18/2024); Social Media (09/18/2024)
Department Approval: Mark Muenzer, Planning and Development Director (09/16/2024)
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide initial guidance and feedback regarding the Sign Code Update.
BACKGROUND
Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC), Chapter 17.330 (Sign Ordinance or the “ordinance”) provides standards and procedures for the regulation of signs in the City. Additional sign regulations are also included in CCMC Chapter 13.02 - Offenses Against Property, and historical signs are approved under CCMC Chapter 15.05 - Historic Preservation Program.
The ordinance has not been updated since 2005. Since that time, changing legislative conditions have clarified how sign code regulations must be written, evolving technologies have created more signage options, and business needs continue to shift. For these reasons, combined with recent City actions to comprehensively update the Zoning Code (CCMC Title 17), City staff has initiated a comprehensive update of the sign regulations contained in Chapter 17.330.
The City Council recently took action to address digital signs on public properties. On June 10, 2024, the City Council approved Zoning Code Amendment P2024-0083-ZCA to amend CCMC Sections 7.330.015 - Definitions and 17.330.040 - Signs in the Public Right-of-Way as they relate to digital wayfinding kiosks on public property. These regulations are not being revisited as part of the comprehensive update program.
DISCUSSION
Currently, the ordinance provides procedures for the review and appeals process for sign permits, sign standards applicable to specific zoning districts, standards for specific types of signs, and general requirements for all signs. The ordinance also lists prohibited and restricted signs, sets forth regulations for signs on public property, and regulates nonconforming signs.
CCMC Chapter 13.02 includes additional regulations for signs prohibited in certain places, signs on residential lots, signs on nonresidential lots, violations, and signs requiring warning of the danger of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. As Chapter 13.02 regulations largely address noncommercial messages and cross reference Chapter 17.330, no changes to Chapter 13.02 are contemplated.
CCMC Chapter 15.05 is the City’s historic preservation ordinance. The term “sign” is included in the definition of “structure” in this chapter, and the sign ordinance includes allowing historic roof signs that meet criteria in Chapter 15.05 (whereas all other roof signs are prohibited). No changes to these provisions are contemplated, although the study session discussion will touch on roof signs.
Staff recommend the Planning Commission consider implementation options for the following key topics:
Approvals and Processes
CCMC Section 17.330.050 regulates the review process and appeals, and CCMC Section 17.330.045 regulates nonconforming signs, both of which were last updated in 2005. The ordinance currently does not include streamlined provisions for creative signs. The process for preserving historic signs that may be nonconforming lacks clarity and may not provide adequate protection for historic or iconic signs. In addition, the review process for Administrative Modifications, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits require updates for clarity.
Clarity, Consistency, and Legal Issues
Ordinance definitions were updated in June 2024 to modify the definition of “public property” and add a definition for “wayfinding kiosk.” However, the balance of this section includes some terms and definitions that lack clarity or have obsolete references.
Sign content and regulations are not up to date with precedent set by Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which ruled that signs cannot be regulated based on content. The sign regulations also do not reference the new or amended zoning districts and may be inconsistent with select General Plan goals and policies.
Design and Development Standards
Sign design and development standards are outlined in several sections, including CCMC Sections 17.330.020, 17.330.025, and 17.330.030, all of which date to 2005. Overall, these sections lack clear, graphic direction on how to determine the measurements of signs.
Sign Types
Sign types are listed in CCMC Section 17.330.015, standards for specific types of signs are outlined in CCMC Section 17.330.025, and prohibited signs are outlined in CCMC Section 17.330.035. These regulations may require updating to reflect current sign technologies and preferences. With the exception of wayfinding kiosks, the ordinance currently lacks regulations on digital signs. The temporary sign provisions do not address A-frame signs and have unclear standards for grand opening signage for new businesses.
Conclusion
Staff is requesting feedback on the above key issues and other sign-related topics (see Attachment 1) from the Planning Commission. Comments received will inform the draft updated sign ordinance. The draft update is anticipated to be available for public review in late Fall 2024, after which a final draft document will be brought forth to the Planning Commission and City Council for final review and adoption.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The City’s consultant conducted nine stakeholder interviews during May and June 2024 to understand any concerns that the development community, local businesses, sign industry representatives, and other stakeholders have about the current Culver City sign regulations and to identify any changes they would like considered.
In summary, stakeholders stated that the code provides various sign options, is consistent with those of other cities, and allows for flexibility in the scale of allowed signage. Stakeholders identified issues with ordinance categories, including temporary signs, digital signs, nonconforming signs, and sign programs.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
No fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Discussion Items for Planning Commission Study Session on the Sign Code Update