The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11.01 Billboard Ordinance 1 - Staff Report COUNCIL LATE AGENDA ITEMS Council Meeting January 8, 2019 . �oF'�� '��Rll"•. `'~'� ��`��' City of Orange .; . o; ;�a 9` `= Community Development Department :e yyCF`��'?A6,t�:��FO Cpv��p Transmittal To: Mayor Muiphy and City Council Members Through: Rick Otto, City Manager William Crouch, Community Development Director�/ From: Ashley Brodkin, Associate Planner Date: January 8, 2019 Re: Public Comments on Ordinance No. 01-19, Item 11.1 Please find enclosed public comments received after the circulation of the staff for Item 11.1, Ordinance No. 01-19 to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 and update the Billboard Ordinance, for the City Council meeting on January 8, 2019. Attachments: 1. Shelly Archer comment letter, dated Januaiy 6, 2019 2. Raymond Burk comment letter, dated January 6, 2019 3. John Belovsky Jr. comment letter, dated January 1, 2019 4. Kenneth Piguee comment letter, dated December 28, 2018 Ashley Brodkin From: Kim Kinsler Sent: Monday,January 7, 2019 8:06 AM To: Ashley Brodkin Subject: FW: Important Follow up from Planning Commission Meeting RE Digital Billboard Attachments: planning commission mtg agenda 12-3-18.pdf Importance: High Not sure if you got a copy of this Ashley. From:Shelly Archer<Shelly.Archer@360dg.com> Sent:Sunday,January 6, 2019 8:47 PM To: mayor@markamurphy.com; councilinfo <councilinfo@cityoforange.org> Cc: robin@edgemac.com;jeongpark@scng.com; max.ashburn@scenic.org;gin.lorimor@gmail.com; DCorrea@cityoforange.org;AGladson@cityoforange.org; EGlasgow@cityoforange.org; DWillits@cityoforange.org; DSimpson@cityoforange.org; Will Kolbow<wkolbow@cityoforange.org>; Mike Alvarez<malvarez@cityoforange.org>; knicols@cityoforange.org; cmonaco@cityoforange.org; Kim Kinsler<kkinsler@cityoforange.org>; phyllisbeaml@gmail.com; susantuttle@cox.net;jessica.harper@outlook.com; Robert Zornado <rzornado@cityoforange.org>;joani@usmilcom.com; nancymcley@gmail.com; karrienelsen@att.net; bunchofhowerys@sbcglobal.net; gin.lorimor@gmail.com Subject: Important Follow up from Planning Commission Meeting RE Digital Billboard Importance: High Hello all—I am disappointed in the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the change to the code that would allow digital billboards within Orange. Several things stood out to me while attending the Planning Commission meeting. It was apparent the Planning Commission did not do their homework prior to the meeting and the ultimate decision in recommending the change to the code. Only one or two members actually drove to Garden Grove to look at the comparable digital billboard. This seems like a simple yet imperative piece of the decision process, but it was not done. The private one on one meetings and conversations that took place with Outfront Media seem grossly one sided while only allowing the citizens of Orange a limited one way statement. Lastly, although there were many ideas provided to do additional research and or compromise, not one idea moved forward. It was as if the Planning Commission had already made up their minds prior to the meeting. Felt pointless being there. I have a few additional questions/comments: • The City Representative that presented on behalf of Outfront Media, mentioned taking photos of a digital billboard in Garden Grove. Can she supply the following info: o Photos took during her research? o Location (address of streets) she researched that were comparable to Presidential track in Garden Grove? o Streets she visited in Orange while conducting her research? • Is there any kind of financial incentive for city employees to raise funds from these billboards? I noticed Outfront Media was congratulating the City Representative after the presentation/meeting. Seemed odd to me since she essentially should be representing me and my interest. • It was disclosed that there were private meetings and conversations with the Planning Commission representatives and Outfront Media prior to the Planning Commission meeting. What was discussed during 1 `: these private sidebar meetings and phone calls with Outfront Media? I find it ridiculously one sided and unfair that Outfront Media is afforded this preferential contact while the tax paying public is only provided a one wav statement lastin�3 minutes. No dialog is allowed with the public but Outfront Media is allowed private meetings and conversations! • Have these sidebar conversations taken place again prior to the City Council meeting with City Council members? • Does the public have this opportunity and access to a real conversation with City Council members vs. a one way statement for 3 minutes? • What specifically will the City request to ban with respect to content, as stated in Wil Kolbow's email below? The Agreement does not contain specifics as to what can be advertised. However, 1 intend to include ad content limitations within the OMC amendmenis that would govern this billboard. To use your example, I would include a ban on marijuana advertising in any proposed language since this City has a ban on marijuana dispensaries and related businesses. The citizens of the Orange are requesting the following: o Requesting a fuli and complete report of how the Garden Grove site compares. To make a fully educated and researched decision, we need to understand the similarities and differences to the Katella site. o Requesting a professional photographer take photos of the Garden Grove Site and Katella site. This photographer should be hired by the city vs Outfront Media. o Further research on the light pollution by an independent consultant and one that takes into the account the full scope of the billboards effect. The current analysis not adequate. o Real estate value research due to the change in the external obsolescence. Please reply to my questions above prior to Tuesday's City Council meeting. Thank you,Shelly Shelly Archer Managing Partner 360 Destination Group D 949.544.7101 � O 949.348.1900 � C 714,476.6488 Shelly.ArcherCa�360dg.com � www.360dg.com �destinafiion �..,,.��oH,,.� . :,��„�,,., . TF:..,s BUIL�-kP.6U\IU Vo�,- group I:II1C.1<:o . 1`I.IIHI.U.� • �}tiY 5'a7ik 2 January 6, 2019 From: Ray�nond Burk 2328 �ast Hoover Avenue Orange, California 92867 To: I-lonorable Mayor and Council Members City of Orange 300 E. Chapman Ave. Orvige, CA 92866 Subject: Opposition to the Proposed Billboard nrdi►�ance, No. O1-1 9 Dear Mayor and Council: I have lived i�� the City of Orange at my present address since 1988. As you ar�lware,the proposed Billboard Ordinance No. O]-l9 will result in changes to the billboard loc�ted at SR-55 and�ast Katella Avenue. It will also repeal the curc•ent ordinance that regulates billUoards and replace it witli a new ordinance that will allow for some billboards to be converted to digital displays. 1 am opposed to this proposed Ordinance for the following reasons: • The existing static billboard at SR-55 and East ICatella Avenue is plainly visible fi•om my house and a large area within the Presidential tract. Althoubh it is unsightly aud 1 am sure that most, if not all residents would�refer to have it removed, it is nonetheless fairly dim at night. 1 would not waitt anything brighter installed at this ]ocation. � I worlc in Sant1 Fe S��rings, and I drive by numerous digitll billboards and signs on the I-5 frceway. All of them ar•e mucli bri�htex�tlzan thE e�isting statie billboard at E�tst Katella Ave. Additionally, the fact that tl�ey changc frec�uently is ve�•y distracting, aud � believe it will be very detrimental to the quality of life in our neigl�borl�ood. • Allowing even one digital billboard i�i Orange wi]l Ue a bli�hl on our city. The Orange that I have lived in for over 30 years is a cut above all oi the cities 1 drive through to work each day. I believe it is not worth removing other less noliceable slatic billboards only to have them be replaced by a digital display at a major gateway to ow•city. lt will reflect poorly on all of Orange, not just the Presidential tract. • It is my understanding that our existing municipal code has successfully preventeci the installation of any additional bill.board.s, as well as dibital dis��lay billboards. I ain very concenied that resciz�ding the existing ordinance could inadvertently open up"Pandora's Box" and allow significat�t unforeseeLl consequences. I am not an attorney, but these billboard companies are extremely IucraYiva operations, and if they can gain an advantage, they will take it. • My biggest concern is wliat digital billboai•ds will become in the fiiture. They are basically lat•ge video screens. While the ziew ordinance may intend to prevent thcm lrom showing video, who can guarantee that a future courl will not rule lhat video can be shown? Also, the content of the videos they will show will likely be protected as free speech. It�nay be very difficult or impossible to control what�vill be displayed. In closing, T am not just concerned with the i�npact that a digital billboard will have on tny neighborhood. I believe that the entire City of Orange will be negatively affected if this is allowed to proceed. None of us knows wl�at tlie firture of digital billboards will look like. Onec a billboard goes digital,tl�ere will be no turning back. Please consider rejecting the proposed I3illboard Ordinance No. 01-19. Sincerely, � �1��- ayinond L. Burk, P.�. Jan.l 2019 7ohn Belovsky Jr. 2126 E Jackson Ave. Orange, Calif 92867 Ashley Brodldn,Assoc.Planner City of Orange Planning Division 300 East Chapman Ave. Orange, Calif. 92866 Dear Ashley, I have attached letter from November of 2017 with my opposition to the billboazds, as well as to converting to electronic. The issues outlined in my letter then are reflective now as well. Short of eliminating billboards, an ideal solution,in the city I feel we need some restrictions. The electronic signs have a tendency to be very bright and I would like tlie illumination factor to be limited in these billboards,electronic or otherwise.Light Pollution if you will affects aIl of us. The elevation hinders our ambience of the sky and the enjoyment of nature along with the relaxation it can bring.Having a large sign seen above the tree tops is not conducive to enjoying our city or skyline. We have to see the billboard on Katella/55 freeway every day and night from our home and it is not aesthetically pleasing. In summary,I oppose billboards in our city and within view of our homes. Please allow suggestions foz these restrictions and allow my letter into the record for this meeting. Regazds, ! Z Date:Mon,Nov 13,2017, 6:50 PM Subject:Nov 14 ciTy council meeting: Billboard To: <rzornadol�a,citvoforange.org> My name is John Belovsky Jr I reside at 2126 east 7ackson Ave. Orange. I am writing regarding the issue of the billboard at about Katella and Newport freeway, 1936 E. Katella. I can see this bi]Iboard from my front yard.I enjoy the colors of sunset,but not the billboard. I am opposed to any and all billboards,and if I understand correcfly,this aforementioned location has applied to change its' lighting to LED.All LED billboazds, as I have seen on many billboards are very bright, distracting and a visual eyesore. The application indicates three other biIlboazds would be tom down with this location being converted to LED lighting.This seems like a fair tradeofF on the surface. I would be in favor of this application on three conditions: *The three billboards at other locations in Orange are permanently torn down, *The LfiD lighting at 1936 E.Katella would have its illumination LIMITED to the current foot- candle, or less. *any zoning change to affect this issue be limited to this 1936(billboard)address only. I ask this letter,email,to go on record. Sincerely, John CZ Ashley Brodkin From: Kenneth Piguee <kpiguee714@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 7:17 AM To: Ashley Brodkin Subject: Mitigated Neg. Dec. 1860-18 and Billboard Ordinance Update Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good morning Ms. Broadkin- My name is Kenneth Piguee and I live at 1327 E Locust Ave, Orange. I am in support of the electronic billboard update and associated regulatory actions primarily because of the new revenue it will bring to the City and also the requirement to reinove other unsightly billboards throughout the City. While I do not live immediately adjacent to one of the locations, I drive by them often and I cannot imagine there will be much difference between the amount of light from the existing billboards and the amount from the electronic. I am glad to see that the Planning Commission passed the item unanimously and I hope the City Council will do the same. Thank you. Kenneth Piguee 714-402-8533 i g��P�R9 �,�`�.��coa +�rFa�� <<,, ;Q AGENDA ITEM ��F�:�a��a,,�,'�P `b�^rt'�g°'� January 8, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council THRU: Rick Otto, City Manager FROM: William Crouch, Community Development Director REVIEW: City Mana er inance ��— 1 . SUBJECT Ordinance No. 01-19 — Introduction and first reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange. 2. SUMMARY An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange repealing and deleting Chapter 5.62, Signs and Billboards, in its entirety, and amending Title 17, Chapter 17.36, Sign Regulations to add a new Section 17.36.180 that provides regulation for the conversion of existing static billboard displays to digital displays, subject to the removal of other existing static billboard displays in the City or its viewshed. 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Ordinance 01-19 for first reading. 4. FISCAL IMPACT None. 5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Goal 2: Be a fiscally healthy community b: Analyze future fiscal needs and potential revenue opportunities. Goal 4: Provide outstanding public service c: Enhance technology to improve public accessibility to information and services. 6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND Project Background OutFront Media, owner of several billboards throughout the City of Orange, proposed the conversion of an existing traditional billboard located at 1936 East Katella Avenue to a digital light-emitting diode (LED) billboard and the removal of a total of five billboard faces. In November 2017, the City and OutFront Media entered into a tentative Relocation ITEM ( � . � � O1/08/2019 Agreement that could result in the removal of five sign faces and the upgrade of the existing billboard at 1936 Katella Avenue to LED, contingent on adoption of Ordinance 01-19. The existing City of Orange Billboard Ordinance does not address new billboard construction or the conversion of existing billboards to a digital format. Furthermore, the Orange Municipal Code does not have provisions elsewhere that specifically address billboards. Project Description The City is proposing an update to the Billboard Ordinance that would completely repeal and delete Chapter 5.62 (Signs and Billboards) and amend Title 17, Chapter 17.36 (Sign Regulations) of the Municipal Code. The ordinance would: • Continue to prohibit the construction of new billboards • Allow retention of existing billboards • Allow electronic conversion of the five billboards located within the Freeway Corridor. • Require a Relocation Agreement with the City before a billboard company may convert an existing traditional billboard to digital display in exchange for removing five existing billboard faces. Conversion of any of the five billboards noted below would be contingent on the removal of other existing billboard faces. Detailed information about each of these billboards is provided in Attachment 5. 1. West side of SR-55, 100 feet south of East Katella Avenue 2. West side of SR-55, 1,900 feet north of Meats Avenue 3. West side of SR-57, 250 feet south of West Chapman Avenue 4. East side of SR-57, 100 feet south of the Santa Ana River 5. East side of SR-57, 220 feet east of the SR-57 north onramp It is improbable that all five billboards would be converted to digital, due to the stipulations included in the ordinance, including requiring the removal of five billboard faces as part of the Relocation Agreement and the separation requirements between electronic billboards. Due to having only 11 billboards in the City, it is unlikely there would be a sufficient number of billboard faces to remove for all five billboards to be converted, which would require the removal of a total of 25 billboard faces. Additionally, Billboards 4 and 5 are located approximately 650 feet apart, which would conflict with the ordinance's separation requirement of 1,000 feet between electronic billboards. Therefore, at most, four billboards could be converted to digital with adoption of the proposed ordinance, although that number would likely be less under current billboard ownership and on- ground conditions. It is important to note that the City only has one pending agreement for the conversion of Billboard 1, located on East Katella Avenue. There have been no proposals for conversion of any of the other billboard locations in the freeway corridor. As part of implementation of the proposed Billboard Ordinance Update, billboards throughout the City of Orange could be removed in the future. Though the City does not have jurisdiction over billboards located in adjacent unincorporated (county) lands, billboards located in the county that affect viewsheds within the city could be removed as part of Relocation Agreements associated with the City's Billboard Ordinance Update. Under the proposed ordinance, billboard conversions to electronic billboards are subject to: ITEM 2 O1/08/2019 • Discretionary approval of a Minor Site Plan Review application • Location within the freeway corridor (defined as property in the city within 300 feet of the freeway right-of-ways), and away from residentially zoned property • Orientation toward the freeway corridor and away from any residentially zoned property, as possible • Separation requirements between electronic billboards • Limitations on height, sign face size, light levels, frequency of inessage change, light intensity, and flashing blinking messages • Requirements for public service and emergency messages Issue Items The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 5) provides details of the below four issue items. A summary of each issue is as follows: • Compatibility of Project with Surrounding Uses - Electronic billboards are limited to freeway corridors with sign face(s) - Oriented towards motorists - LED brightness levels are self-adjustable to adjust brightness based on surrounding illumination intensity/time of day or night - LED brightness is regulated to well below applicable standards of the Outdoor Advertising Act - Each static message or image would be displayed for a minimum of eight consecutive seconds before changing - The LED faces would not be significantly brighter than the existing static faces and would not significantly increase ambient nighttime lighting when compared to existing conditions - There will be no change to visual character of the area • Size of the Billboard Faces - Pole heights would not change; however, the smaller"face" of the LED display would result in a reduced overall billboard height (a 6-foot reduction in height of the face and a 12-foot reduction in its width) • Content of Ads - The content of the proposed upgraded billboards under this Ordinance would be the same as the content of the existing traditional billboards and comply with a 1995 Billboard Settlement Agreement which prohibits advertising for tobacco products or alcoholic beverages, except beer, wine, and any other alcoholic beverage with an alcoholic content not in excess of 40 proof. • Public Comments - Comments and concerns received in response to public notice primarily relate to electronic billboard compatibility with the neighborhood, potential effects on neighbors, the aesthetic and light impacts from the digital billboards, the impact on property values, and potential content of the advertisement. Public Notices were mailed to 348 property owners/tenants in the area surrounding Billboard Site 1 (E. Katella Avenue at SR-55). Environmental Impact/Mitigation Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 1860-18 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 7). The MND analysis ITEM 3 O1/08/2019 determined that the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects without mitigation to the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and TransportationlTraffic. Incorporation of mitigation measures, such as requiring a site-specific lighting study, requiring an operating mechanism that turns off the display in the event of a malfunction and nesting bird surveys should construction occur during breeding season, into the project reduces significant impacts to less than significant levels. During the public review period for the MND, the City received seven comment letters from individuals. Responses were prepared for all comments and are incorporated in the MND. Planning Commission Hearing On December 3, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed Ordinance Amendment and recommended City Council approval of Ordinance 01-19 by a vote of 5-0. Key topics of discussion by the Commission included potential light impacts on surrounding residential uses, size and height of the billboard signs, and content of the ads. There were three public comments at the public hearing, expressing opposition to the Ordinance Amendment. The comments included the compatibility with the neighborhood and potential effects on neighbors, the aesthetic and light impacts from the digital billboards, the impact on property values, and concerns regarding the content of the ads. 7. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft City Council Billboard Ordinance (redline) 2. Draft City Council Billboard Ordinance (clean) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 32-18 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 3, 2018 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 3, 2018 6. Emailed Public Comments 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18 , ITEM 4 O1/08/2019 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2019 9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued) City Attorney Winthers reported that a court in San Diego issued a preliminary injunction halting the Orange County mobile needle exchange program. A trial date is expected sometime in the summer. MOTION —Murphy SECOND —Nichols AYES —Alvarez, Murphy,Nichols, Monaco Moved to approve Ordinance No. 02-19 for First Reading and same was set for Second Reading by the preceding vote. 10. ITEMS RELATING TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY—None 11 PUBLIC HEARING (NOTE: Item 11.1 was re-ordered to be heard after the Consent Calendax.) 11.1 Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. O1-19 (Billboard Ordinance). (A2500.0) Time set for a public hearing to consider approval of Billboard Ordinance No. 01-19 repealing and deleting Chapter 5.62, Signs and Billboards, in its entirety, and amending Title 17, Chapter 17.36 Sign Regulations to add a new Section 17.36.180 that provides regulation for the conversion of an existing static billboard displays to digital displays, subject to the removal of other existing static billboard in the City or its viewshed. Associate Planner Ashley Brodkin provided the staff report and answered Council's questions regarding the height of the proposed digital billboard. The overall size of the face and height of the sign will decrease. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. Public Speaker: Matthew Cunningham—spoke in support of approving the ordinance. Shelly Archer—spoke in opposition of approving the ordinance. Susan Tuttle—spoke in opposition of approving the ordinance. Robin Auerback—spoke in opposition of approving the ordinance. Robert Goldberg, applicant—spoke in support of approving the ordinance. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2019 11 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) During discussion,City Attorney Winthers explained that the current billboard sign is there pursuant to the 1995 settlement agreement with National Advertising. Through that lawsuit it was determined that the City can limit the number of billboards but not prohibit them or remove them. Ordinance No. 01-19 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Orange adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1860-18, repealing and deleting Chapter 5.62 of the Orange Municipal Code in its entirety, and amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code by adding Section 17.36.180 regulating the conversion of existing billboards along freeway corridors to electronic billboards. MOTION —Nichols � . . SECOND —Alvarez � AYES —Alvarez, Murphy,Nichols,.Monaco . Moved to approve Ordinance No. 01-19 for First Reading and same was set for Second Reading by the preceding vote. ' � 12. ADJOURNMENT—The City Council adjourned at 10:00 p.m. in Memory of Jim Owens, Orange resident and longtime community leader to a meeting on January 22, 2019. An Adjourned Regular Meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 6:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber,with Closed Session beginning at 5:00 p.m.if necessary. � � �� , _ � � ' ��, - � l�� _ �, PAMEL�-4�OLEMAN -,,^ ,..,� .. . A. MURPHY 1 .,. . _.... ... . ... .. � � CITY CLERK . _�.. . ,.; . . . ; � �. . :,�;:: � .... ;:MAYOR PAGE 11