Report Prepared by: Julie Nelson, Acting Planning Manager
Title
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Sign/Zoning Ordinance Amendment #23-04, Initiated by the City of Merced; This Application Involves Repealing Chapter 17.36 - Signs from the Merced Municipal Code and Replacing Chapter 20.62 - Signs in its Entirety with a Comprehensive Update to the Existing Sign Regulations
REPORT IN BRIEF
This application involves repealing Chapter 17.36 - Signs from the Merced Municipal Code and replacing Chapter 20.62 - Signs in its entirety with a comprehensive update to the ordinance that would place all sign regulations in one chapter, bring the Sign Ordinance into compliance with recent court rulings, and make the sign requirements consistent throughout the City. The new ordinance would include new definitions, new regulations for sign area, temporary signs, digital/LED signs, signs in the public right-of-way, billboards, regional signs, freeway signs, and various other sign regulations. The proposed sign ordinance would categorize signs into four main types: permanent building signs, permanent freestanding signs, temporary building signs, and temporary freestanding signs. Each type of sign would be regulated by quantity, size, shape, type of illumination and location. Additionally, minor amendments to Chapter 20.90.020 - “Definitions” would be made to bring this section into compliance with the definitions provided in Chapter 20.62.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council - Adopt a motion:
A. Adopting a Categorical Exemption for Environmental Review #23-27; and,
B. Introducing Ordinance 2549, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Merced, California, Amending Chapter 20.62 - “Signs,” Chapter 20.90.020 “Definitions,” and Repealing Chapter 17.36 - “Sign” of the Merced Municipal Code to Establish New Sign Regulations Within the City of Merced.
Body
ALTERNATIVES
1. Introduce the Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff; or,
2. Introduce the Ordinance, subject to modifications by City Council (identify specific items to be amended in the motion); or,
3. Deny; or,
4. Refer to staff for reconsideration of specific items (to be addressed in the motion; or,
5. Continue to a future City Council meeting (date and time to be specified in motion).
AUTHORITY
Merced Municipal Code Section 20.80, “Zoning Ordinance Amendments,” spells out procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES
As provided for in the City Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023/24
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The proposed ordinance amendment is a comprehensive update of the Sign Ordinance which includes repealing the existing Sign Ordinance in Chapter 17.36 - “Signs” of the Merced Municipal Code (MMC) and adding new sections to Chapter 20.62 - “Signs” as well as amending Chapter 20.90.020 - “Definitions”. This update is intended to make the Sign Ordinance less confusing and easier to interpret as well as bringing the ordinance into compliance with recent Supreme Court rulings. The Draft Sign Ordinance proposed to replace MMC Chapter 20.62 is provided at Attachment 1. Minor changes were made to the City Council Draft Ordinance as compared to the Draft Ordinance provided to the Planning Commission. These changes were correcting typographical and formatting errors. No changes were made to the proposed regulations.
The current Sign Ordinance is divided into different sections within the MMC Chapter 17.36- Signs with different regulations for North Merced, the Downtown Design Review Area, and General Regulations. Additionally, there are sign regulations found in MMC Chapter 20.62 which have additional regulations for difference commercial zoning districts. The current Sign Ordinance tends to be confusing and difficult to interpret. This amendment would centralize all the sign requirements into one chapter (Chapter 20.62) and help simplify the regulations. Additionally, a recent Supreme Court ruling determined that sign ordinances must not violate the provisions of the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause. As such, governments can’t regulate the content of speech, including signs that contain speech, but they can regulate the time, place, and manner of that speech. The City’s existing Sign Ordinance (Chapter 17.26 and 20.62) is provided aa part of the Planning Commission Staff Report at Attachment 3.
Existing Signs
Because the proposed Sign Ordinance is a comprehensive update to the current ordinance, many existing signs throughout the City would not comply with the new regulations. However, the proposed ordinance addresses this issue by allowing existing signs that comply with the existing code to be “grandfathered” into the new sign standards by being considered legally non-conforming signs. This means the signs were once legal, but with this change would no long be legal. Under this provision, existing signs that were legally installed could remain until such time as a significant change to the sign ordinance is proposed.
Background
The City completed a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update in 2016. Under the previous Zoning Ordinance, regulations regarding signage were spread throughout the Zoning Ordinance in addition to those within the Sign Ordinance (MMC Section 17.36). Under the new Zoning Ordinance, all the sign regulations with the Zoning Code were consolidated and reformatted into Chapter 20.62, but the regulations did not change. The regulations in MMC Chapter 17.36 also remained unchanged.
The current regulations found in Chapter 17.36 contain general regulations and definitions which apply to all areas of the City, but there are specific regulations that apply only to North Merced (north of Bear Creek) and the Downtown area (which generally covers an area from 19th to 14th Streets and Bear Creek to Highway 99 that corresponds to the Design Review/previous Downton Redevelopment Area boundary).
The City’s current Sign Ordinance does not adequately address, and in some cases does not address at all, many modern sign designs (such as LED/Digital signs, inflatable signs, feather signs, sandwich boards, human signs, etc.), the Reed vs. Gilbert Supreme Court Case, and regulations for political signs, signs within the public right-of-way, gasoline price signs, and signs within residential zoning districts, to name just a few.
In 2019, minor updates to the current Sign Ordinance were approved by City Council. These amendments primarily affected the North Merced area and focused on Shopping Center signs to address some immediate needs raised by prospective and existing businesses in the City.
Also, in July 2019, City staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire consultants to complete a Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Update, with proposals due on September 13, 2019. QK was selected as the consultant to prepare the comprehensive update. There has been extensive public outreach including focus group meetings, interviews with staff and other stakeholders, as well as surveys of other city’s sign ordinances.
On August 16, 2023, a public workshop was held in the City Council Chambers to introduce the proposed revisions to the Sign Ordinance. There were approximately 10-12 members of the public in attendance. The Draft Ordinance has also been posted to the City’s website for public review.
Planning Commission Action
On September 6, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed sign ordinance. The Commission voted unanimously (6,0,1 absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission (refer to Planning Commission Resolution #4122 at Attachment 2). The Planning Commission staff report is provided at Attachment 3.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission did not review the amendments to Chapter 20.92.020 - Definitions as it was not discovered that those changes needed to be made until after the Planning Commission’s review. These changes are very minor and provide a reference to the new ordinance for two definitions and eliminate a definition for a sign type that is no longer used. Therefore, it was determined that the Planning Commission’s review remains valid, and the City Council can take action as recommended by the Commission.
Environmental Review
Planning staff has conducted an environmental review (Environmental
Review #23-20) of the project in accordance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends the adoption of a Categorical Exemption (Attachment 4).
City Council Action
The City Council should hold a public hearing on this matter. After the public hearing, staff is recommending the City Council adopt Environmental Review #23-27 (Categorical Exemption) and introduce the ordinance at Attachment 5.
IMPACT ON CITY RESOURCES
There is no impact on City resources and no appropriation of funds is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution #4122
3. Planning Commission Staff Report #23-730
4. Environmental Review #23-27 (Categorical Exemption)
5. Draft Ordinance 2549
6. Presentation