Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-18; City Council; 16363; Recommendations of the Citizen's Committee to Study the Proposed Comprehensive Sign Ordinance AmendmentCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# lb! 3b3 TITLE: MTG. &$& RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DEPT. Y’ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council accept and file the report, “Recommendations Of the Citizen’s Committee to Study the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment,” review the recommendations, make modifications to the recommendations, as appropriate, and direct staff to make revisions to the proposed Sign Ordinance and return to the Planning Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: On July 24, 2001, the City Council appointed a fifteen-member citizen’s committee to study the proposed comprehensive sign ordinance amendment (ZCA OO-04/LCPA 00-07) and report its recommendations for appropriate revisions. The Citizen’s Committee convened its first meeting on July 30,200l and met one day per week over the following 4 weeks (concluding on August 27, 2001). During the course of the Citizen’s Committee meetings the following occurred: 1) the committee reviewed the City’s existing Sign Ordinance, the proposed new Draft Sign Ordinance with revisions made as a result of public input at Planning Commission, major reference materials used to prepare the draft new ordinance and staff report and minutes (dated June 6, June 13 and June 20, 2001) of Planning Commission deliberations; 2) City staff provided a detailed overview of the proposed Sign Ordinance revisions and the legal and technical reasons for the revisions; 3) consultant legal counsel (Randal R. Morrison) explained the constitutional freedom of speech issues associated with sign ordinance regulation and provided specific legal advice on identified sign ordinance issue areas; 4) the public was provided an opportunity for input at every meeting; 5) the major sign ordinance issue areas were clearly identified, and vigorously discussed; and 6) the Citizen’s Committee proposed recommendations (See Exhibit “1” - Report and Recommendations Of the Citizens Committee to Study the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment) regarding each of the identified eight (8) key issues areas including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Retain the City’s Kiosk Sign Program and continue to allow them in the public right-of- way; Continue to allow A-Frame Signs (in the Village Redevelopment Area) in the public right-of-way; Allow Special Event Signs to be located off-site and in the public right-of-way; Allow Political Campaign Signs on private property according to the original staff recommendation; Continue to allow Political Campaign Signs in the public right-of-way; Allow Wall Sign Area for Commercial Uses according to the original staff recommendation; Prohibit Real Estate Signs in the public right-of-way according to the original staff recommendation; and Allow City-installed Lamppost Banners with Non-Commercial Messages (in the Village Redevelopment Area) in the public right-of-way. Under the public forum doctrine, courts give governments more latitude when acting as a manager of public property (i.e.; the public right-of-way) than when acting as a regulator of private property (See Exhibit “2” for details). For this reason, the Citizen’s Committee is recommending to permit signs in the public right-of-way. Exhibit “3” includes a comparison of the original staff recommendations and I PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. I(0 ! &3 Citizen’s Committee recommendations on the eight Sign Ordinance issue areas as well as a legal principle and strategy for implementing these recommendations. Otherwise, the Citizen’s Committee generally concurs with the balance of the proposed Sign Ordinance revisions. ENVIRONMENTAL: The City Council’s consideration of the Citizen’s Committee recommendations for revisions to the proposed sign ordinance is categorically exempt under CEQA pursuant to Section 15306, Information Collection. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be minimal fiscal impact associated with the expenditure of staff time to complete the processing of the proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment through the Planning Commission and City Council. EXHIBITS: 1. 2. 3. Report and Recommendations Of the Citizens Committee to Study the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment (previously distributed). (and on file in the Clerk's Office) Key Concepts Of Sign Regulation, Randal R. Morrison, August 31, 2001. Comparison of the Original Staff Recommendations and the Citizen’s Committee Recommendations on the Eight Sign Ordinance Issue Areas. a EXHIBIT 2 KEY CONCEPTS OF SIGN REGULATION by Randal Morrison, Attorney and Consultant on Sign Regulation / signlaw.com August 3 1,200 1 SIGNS: PROS AND CONS Every retail business views effective signage as essential to success; manufacturers, distributors and professionals often want signs to identify their office or place of operations. Travelers and visitors need signs to direct them to the place or services they seek. Dog owners, operators of heavy equipment, and many others have a legal duty to warn of known dangers. Without regulation signs, traffic would be chaotic. Those who wish to influence public opinion, especially at election time, often view signs as the most efficient way to raise awareness. They know that the sign can be strategically placed to address only the target audience, and to avoid the wasted coverage inherent in more expensive media such as radio, television, or newspapers. However, like most good things, signage can be “too much,” or simply “inappropriate.” Cities try to properly balance need and function against excess through sign regulation. However, all too often they are frustrated in their efforts because the field is one of the most complex in government, standing at the confluence of free speech rights, zoning and planning law, and property concepts. Given the importance of signs, many people are willing to sue when they are told their sign does not meet local code. LEGAL ENVIRONMENT The federal civil rights remedy law’ applies to sign regulation. Challengers may seek court orders barring enforcement. Billboard companies often file challenges to entire sign ordinances, and sometimes succeed in having the local law completely invalidated by a court. Attorneys’ fees can be awarded to successful challengers. Compensatory damages for infringement of the free speech and free press rights are theoretically available, but only rarely awarded, according to the reported cases. Unfortunately, the court decisions are inconsistent from region to region, and sometimes even inconsistent within the same federal appellate circuit. Given the inconsistencies in the court decisions, an absolutely “bullet proof’ ordinance is not possible, and the topic must be approached with the greatest of care and deliberation. ’ 42 USC 1983 THREE BIG IDEAS Three “big ideas” form the foundation of the law of signs. First is the distinction between two different roles the government may play: regulator of private property and manager of public property.2 In general, courts give governments greater latitude when managing public land than when regulating private property; clarifying this distinction, and drafting the sign ordinance accordingly, can have a profound effect if and when a sign ordinance is reviewed by a judge. The second concept is the difference between commercial speech - advertising - and noncommercial speech - advocacy on issues of public debate. Noncommercial speech, sometimes called “core speech” is “of a higher constitutional moment” than commercial speech; this means that a greater degree of regulation of commercial speech is constitutionally permissible.3 And third is the idea of the “time place and manner” regulation, which allows governments to control signs by size, spacing, height, illumination and other “structure” rules, so long as the rules operate are “viewpoint neutral” and leave open other means for expression, KEY CASES ON SIGN REGULATION THE REGULATION CASES: METROMEDIA, LADUE AND LINMARK The most important sign regulation case is Metromedia v. San Diegq4 decided in 1981 by a badly split U.S. Supreme Court; the official case report runs 80 pages and features heated debate among the justices. Despite the five differing opinions, the case makes clear that: 1) restrictions on commercial and noncommercial speech are analyzed separately; 2) greater restrictions are allowed on commercial speech, including a complete ban on offsite commercial speech (i.e., billboards); 3) the government may not favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech. The plurality opinion (4 votes out of 9) on noncommercial speech held that the government may not show favoritism to certain speakers or messages within the category of noncommercial speech; that point is treated by most lower courts as if it were a majority holding. The Metromedia decision addresses only the government acting as a regulator. 2 The government may also act in its capacity as an employer, and condition employment upon restriction of free speech rights, including political signs in private yards; however such matters are treated in employee handbooks, not sign ordinances. 3 Several current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, including Justices Thomas and Kennedy, have stated in official opinions that wish to abandon the principle of lower protection for commercial speech when the message concerns a legal product and is not deceptive; however the Court’s most recent sign case, LoriZZard v. Reilly [June 20011, 121 S.Ct. 2404, rejects their call to change constitutional doctrine in this area. 4 453 U.S. 490 (1981) In Ladue v. GiZZeo’ the high court held, in a unanimous decision, that the government may not completely ban political signs in residential neighborhoods. But the decision also indicated that “more temperate measures” - rules short of a complete ban - could be upheld. In Linmark Realty v. WiZZingboro,6 the Court held that a city could not completely ban “real estate for sale” signs placed on residential properties. THE PUBLIC FORUM CASES: LEHMAN AND VINCENT A close second to Metromedia, in terms of importance, is Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for J4ncent,7 a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the right of the City to completely ban political campaign and all other signs, commercial and noncommercial, from public utility poles. Thus, Vincent is a leading case on the government as manager of public property. Even though the Metromedia case says the government may not favor commercial speech over noncommercial messages, this rule does not necessarily apply when the govemment acts as a manager of public property. The archetype of the principle is Lehman v. Shaker Heights.’ A political candidate wanted to buy “car cards” in public transportation vehicles which served his district, but the government refused to sell the space, saying their policy was to allow only commercial messages on that particular line. Political advertising had been accepted on other lines in the same system. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to refuse the ads. Four votes turned on the government ownership factor, and a concurring vote turned on “captive audience” considerations. Today, Lehman is widely viewed as one of the foundation cases for the “public forum” doctrine, which allows governments to set special access rules for the use of public property as a place for debate or expression. Lehman provides authority for the City to limit political and other noncommercial speech on public property to certain times and places, while Vincent provides authority for a complete ban on political speech on public property. 5 512 us 43 (1994) 6 431 U.S. 85 (1977) 7104 S.Ct. 2118 (1984) * 418 U.S. 298 (1974) THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE - AREAS OF RISK However, other “public forum” cases warn that the policy must meet certain requirements to be validated by a court: 1) it must be clear and reasonable, although it need not be written; 2) the policy must not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint; 3) the policy must be consistently enforced. The importance of these factors is emphasized by comparing two cases with highly similar facts - abortion related protest signs on public transportation vehicles - but opposite results. In both cases the government denied access to established sign display areas to groups who were willing to pay the standard rate and provide ready-to-mount signage. In both cases the government claimed a policy of accepting only commercial advertising, and refused the ads. In the Philadelphia case, Christ’s Bride v. SEPTA,9 the challengers proved that the government had allowed messages on family planning, AIDS prevention, and rape counseling; the reviewing court said that having opened the door to the subjects of sex and reproduction, the government could not discriminate against the abortion protests, and had to accept them. But in the Phoenix case, Children of the Rosary v. Phoenix,” the city proved that it had consistently enforced the policy of accepting commercial messages only; thus, the city could refuse the protest ads. Other cases holding that when acting as a manager of public property, the government may favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech, are listed in the footnote.” COMMERCIAL “A FRAME” SIGNS IN THE VILLAGE The main legal concern about so-called “A frame” commercial signs is that they are an exception to the City’s general policy of not allowing offsite commercial signs. However, whether a given sign is “onsite” or “offsite” is a matter of definition. Most sign ordinances define “onsite” in terms of the parcel or lot on which the business or other establishment is located, but the term could also be defined to include signs directly in front of the establishment, even if on a different parcel. The second issue is “owner’s consent,” which in this case would mean the City’s consent. That consent could be granted on conditions such as maximum size, height, display times, and requiring insurance which names the City as an additional insured. As discussed above, the courts allow governments to restrict particular locations on public property for commercial messages only. This comment addresses legal issues only; esthetic and planning factors should also be considered. ’ 148 F.3d 242 (Third Circ., 1998) lo 154 F.3d 972 (Ninth Circ., 1998) (d ecision written by Byron White, retired former member of the U.S. Supreme Court) l1 DiLoretto v. Downey, 196 F3d 958 (Ninth Circ., 1999), Lebon v. Amtrak, 69 F.3d 650 (Second Circ., 1996) TRACT HOUSING “KIOSK” SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY The “kiosk” signs, giving directions to various tract housing developments, are also exceptions to the general policy of disallowing offsite commercial signs. However, in this case it would be illogical to define such signs as being “onsite” since they refer to many projects, and are located far from the developments. Yet the principle of allowing only commercial signs, and excluding all noncommercial signs, from certain locations on public property, still applies in this context. The City’s consent for private commercial companies to utilize this space could be based on conditions, including payment of a rent or royalty on sales, accepting only ads for housing developments located within the City and currently offering units for sale, etc. Although no reported case precisely on point has been found, a judge would likely validate such a program, provided he or she is given adequate briefing on the public forum doctrine and the principle that commercial speech enjoys a lower degree of protection than noncommercial speech. As in the section on A frames, this comment addresses only legal issues. EXHIBIT 3 COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE EIGHT SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUE AREAS ORIGINAL STAFF SIGN COMMITTEE LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION FWCOMMENDA’fION RECOMMENDATION 1. Prohibit Kiosk Signs in Retain the City’s Kiosk The City as Adopt City Policy the Public Right-of Way. Sign Program and continue “proprietor or Regarding Signs on (The City ‘s existing Kiosk to allow them in the Public manager” of its Public Property. Sign Program sunset in Right-of Way. Update the own property (i.e.; January, 1997). overall design of the kiosk the public right-of- signs. way) may allow temporary residential subdivision (kiosk) signs in the Public Right-of Way. 2. Prohibit A-Frame Signs Continue to allow A-Frame The City as Revise the sign ordinance in the Public Right-of Way, Signs in the Public Right-of “proprietor or definition of “on- Citywide. Way in the Village manager” of its premises” within the Redevelopment Area. own property (i.e.; Village Redevelopment the public right-of- Area to include the Continue to prohibit A- way) may allow sidewalk, and require that Frame Signs in the rest of A-Frame signs in the sign owner indemnify the City. the Public Right-of the City and comply with Way in the Village City Policy Regarding Redevelopment Signs on Public Property. Area. 3. Prohibit Off-Site Allow Temporary, Special Control through The Special Event Permit Temporary Special Event Event Signs to be located the Special Event process may need to be Signs. Off-Site of the Special Permit process. modified. Event and in the Public Right-of-Way with appropriate time limits. 4. AZZow Political Campaign Allow Political Campaign The City must No revisions required. Signs on Private Property as Signs on Private Property allow some non- follows: according to the staff commercial signs 8 SFfiesiden tial Lot recommendation. on residential 16 SF/Non-Residential Lot properties at all times; the substitution clause allows non- commercial signs on non-residential properties at all times. 8 COMPARISON OF THE ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE EIGHT SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUE AREAS ORIGINAL STAFF SIGN COMMITTEE LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION 5. Prohibit Campaign and Continue to allow The City as Adopt City Policy other Non-Commercial Campaign Signs in the “proprietor or Regarding Signs on Signs in the Public Right-of Public Right-of-Way. manager” of its Public Property and Way. own property (i.e.; establish specific sign the public right-of- standards for the way) may allow permitted number, size non-commercial and required spacing for signs (i.e.; such signs. Non- campaign signs) in commercial signs are the Public Right-of allowed at all times on Way at specified private property. The times and places. amount of signage allowed increases during campaign season. 6. Allow Wail Sign Area for Allow Wall Sign Area for No revisions required. Commercial Uses as Commercial Uses follows: 1 SF of Sign Area according to the staff N/A for every lineal foot of recommendation. building frontage. 7. Prohibit Real Estate Prohibit Real Estate Signs Real Estate signs No revisions required. Signs in the Public Right-of in the Public Right-of Way, must be allowed Way. with the exception of on private property subdivision (kiosk) signs, pursuant to Civil according to the staff Code 713. recommendation. 8. Prohibit Banners on Allow City installed lamp- Still under legal Lampposts on Public post banners with non- analysis. Streets. commercial messages (i.e.; holiday/museum/art project messages) in the Public Right-of-Way in the Village Redevelopment Area. Consider also allowing lamppost banners in the Public Right-of-Way in other areas of the City. T@ oc-R-0~ A-r3 &,36 3 a a3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Of the Citizens Committee To Study the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance Amendment August 27,200l COMMITTEE MEMBERS Diane Scheer, Chair Bob Ladwig, Vice-Chair Rich Barnes Joe Bear Rick Blakemore Scott Brusseau Kurt Burkhart Bill Huss Joyce Kennedy Bill Lantz Leslea Meyerhoff Bailey Noble Hany pag Guy Roney, III Julie Spitzer I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Mission Statement Introduction Recommendations Committee Meeting Summaries I. MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Carlsbad Sign Ordinance Committee is to hold public meetings regarding the City of Carlsbad updated proposed sign ordinance, scheduled to become effective December 14, 2001. The objective of these meetings is to review both the legal and technical reasons for the changes proposed to this ordinance, give voice to citizen concerns, and make committee recommendations in a report to the City Council by September 4,200l. The recommendations will be made in keeping with the following objectives: A. To balance the need to foster economic development with the desire to maintain and enhance the aesthetic values and quality of life of the citizens of Carlsbad. B. To grant adequate message opportunity for commercial and non-commercial uses and to ensure protection of First Amendment civil rights, including provision for ideological/non- commercial signs. C. To promote public safety, including the provision of adequate traffic and directional signage for residents and visitors. II. INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad Citizen’s Sign Ordinance Committee would like to sincerely thank Mayor Claude “Bud” Lewis, and Councilmembers Finnila, Hall, Kulchin, and Nygaard for their courage and vision in making this process inclusive by convening and considering the recommendations of the 15member citizen’s Sign Ordinance Committee (“Committee”). The Committee greatly appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the City of Carlsbad and took seriously the charge it had been given: namely to review and consider proposed overhaul of the City’s existing Sign Ordinance. Thanks to comprehensive presentations prepared by numerous City Staff members, as well as the important and highly relevant legal advice and direction provided by Randal R. Morrison, Esq., the Committee was able to quickly focus on the key issues and identify those issues requiring legal guidance and contemplation. After reviewing the information provided to us and listening to all the input that was presented to us by the public at our meetings, the Committee focused its attention on eight key concerns regarding the proposed ordinance: l subdivision directional (kiosk) signs l A-Frame signs a special event signs . real estate signs in the right-of-way l campaign signs 0 commercial sign allowance l campaign signs in the public right-of-way l lamppost banners in the public right-of- way. The Committee worked diligently and within a matter of just over a month completed its’ review of the Staff proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance. The Committee believes that it now fully 1 grasps the technical and legal reasons behind the need for updating our city’s existing Sign Ordinance. The Committee’s awareness of the many legal complexities was heightened by City Staff and Randal Morrison, Esq. regarding the many issues involved in this ordinance especially in regards to off-site signage, signs in the public right-of-way versus those on private property, and the challenges of billboard regulation. Further, the differences between the City’s actions as a regulator versus those as a manager were explained as they relate to signs on private property and public lands, respectively. The Committee wants to emphasize that we understand and recognize the importance of prohibiting billboards in our city. However, we also recognize the need for attention to the unique signage challenges within the City of Carlsbad, and in particular the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Area (“Village”). Thus, the challenge before the Committee was to seek a balance between aesthetics, public safety, and First Amendment freedoms of speech while allowing businesses to promote their business enterprises and thus help sustain continued Citywide economic growth and development. Therefore, we wish to make the following recommendations to the City Council in light of and in full consideration of the above. We ask the Carlsbad City Council, in its wisdom, to appreciate the sincerity of our Committee members in asking the Council to seek ways to include our recommendations in the final Sign Ordinance. Thank you again for the opportunity to be of service to you and the City of Carlsbad. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Each of the following recommendations was voted upon in our Committee meeting on August 20, 2001. The voting process was majority rule, with the Chair abstaining from the vote unless needed to break a tie. The voting results are listed by each recommendation for your records, including how many members were present at each vote as some members were not able to stay for the entire meeting. KIOSKS: Subdivision Directional Signage The Sign Ordinance Committee believes that the kiosk subdivision directional signs are important signage, necessary to helping the public find subdivisions and in providing added safety to our community in that they provide guidance to both pedestrians and to automobile traffic. We also believe that uniformity of these signs needs to be maintained. The Committee suggests that the overall design of these signs, however, be reviewed and updated. Motion: Recommend that the kiosk sign program be retained and the uniform design of the signs be updated, The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 14 No Votes: 0 Abstentions: 0 Members Present: 15 * * Chair voted only in case of a tie vote. A-FRAMES: Sidewalk or Free Standing Signs in the Public Right-of-Way The Sign Ordinance Committee believes that A-Frames are a business necessity in the Village only. They provide line of sight vision, store visibility and recognition, and they support customers finding their way to the stores. We request that the City continue to regulate the size and specifications of this type of signage. Motion: Continue to allow A-Frame signs in the Village. Continue to prohibit them in the rest of the City. Encourage Village merchants to continue exploring other types of projecting signs such as those that hang perpendicular to the building facade above the sidewalks. The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Motion passed. Yes Votes: No Votes: Abstentions: Absent: Members Present: 9 2 tB1akemoreiI-Ius.s) 2 (LantzMeverhoffl Pligg 14 * SPECIAL EVENTS SIGNS: Off-site and on-site si.a-nage, including locations in the nublic right- of-way The Sign Ordinance Committee believes that Special Event Signage is needed to create excitement and community awareness of events and to create an ambiance about the activities in our City. In addition, the Committee suggests that time restrictions be placed on the amount of time prior to the event that signs may be placed. Motion: To allow special event signage on-site and off-site and in the public right-of-way, with appropriate time limits, distance or other appropriate conditions. The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 11 No Votes: 0 Abstentions: 2 (Burkhtiennedy) Absent: PIigg Members Present: 14 * POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS: On Private Proper-& The Sign Ordinance Committee believes that political campaign signs encourage vigorous discourse regarding one of our most important rights. The new, proposed sign ordinance has adequately addressed this important signage type. Motion: That Political Campaign Signs be allowed on private property according to the staff recommendation included in the proposed ordinance. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 11 No Votes: 1 (Noble) Abstentions: 1 (Meyerhoff) Absent: P&g Members Present: 14 * POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGNS: In Public Right-of-Wav The Sign Ordinance Committee believes that the posting of political campaign signs in the public right-of-way should not be prohibited, however these signs should have a 45-day time limit (as do campaign signs on private property). Motion: Recommend continued allowance of political campaign signs in the public right-of- way, as in the existing ordinance, with as close to current restrictions as possible. The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 13 No Votes: 0 Abstentions: 0 Absent: Pligg Members Present: 14 * AMOUNT OF SIGN AREA FOR COMMERCIAL SITES: Proposed 1 sq ft per linear foot of frontage per proiect The Sign Ordinance Committee believes that Staffs recommendation is fair and adequate. Motion: That the allowance for commercial signage as recommended by Staff in the proposed ordinance be approved. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 10 No Votes: 0 Abstentions: 0 Absent: Ladwin, Lantz, Prigg and Ronev Members Present: 11* REAL ESTATE SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The Sign Ordinance Committee held a long deliberation regarding real estate signs in the public right-of-way. We took into account the opinion of realtors who voiced that realtors want no restriction and that such signage is important to the livelihood of these local business people. We also expressed awareness of the current economic issues that affect such livelihood. However, an allowance of this sort gives one type of business an advantage that other businesses do not have. Also, we were aware of the need to be fair to both realtors and to resident needs. We also considered whether setting specific days and times of day when such signs might be allowed was reasonable. We had concerns as well as to whether any allowance would weaken the prohibition against billboards. Motion: To support the proposed ordinance as it is currently recommended by Staff which does not permit real estate signs in the public right-of-way. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 8 No Votes: 1 (Huss) Abstentions: 1 (Kennedy’) Absent: Ladwia, Lantz, Prigg and Ronev Members Present: 11 * LAMPPOST BANNERS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: For holiday messages, museum messages, provision of special art projects (non-commercial messages), etc. The Committee discussed, at length, allowing lamppost banners throughout the City (installed by the City) for limited uses and time periods. We considered the public and community benefit that would be created by a sense of presence or the ambiance one feels by a variety of colors and themes at various times of the year. The lamppost banners can promote cultural and unique events that would benefit the entire community. While there was unanimous agreement on allowing them in the Village, some members of the Committee expressed concerns about expanding the program to the rest of the City because the City may be placed in the position to decide what or how non-commercial messages would be differentiated. Nonetheless, the majority of the Committee felt that the City should consider the possibilities of expanding the program. Motion #l Recommend that lamppost banners (installed by the City) in the public right- of-way be limited to non-commercial messages and allowed in the Village Redevelopment Area. Redevelopment staff should review the current program to consider expanding the types of non-commercial messages placed on banners. The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 13 No Votes: 0 Abstentions : 0 Absent: Ladwin Members Present: 14* Motion #2: Recommend that the City Council and Staff consider possible expansion of the City areas in which lamppost banners (installed by the City) are allowed. Motion passed. Yes Votes: 10 No Votes: 3 Barnes. Brusseau. Noble Abstentions : 0 Absent: Ladwin Members Present: 14 * *** 6 IV. COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES l July 30,200l l August 6,200l l August 13,200l a August 20,200l l August 27,200l 7 SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE ( Amended Monday, July 30,200l 7:30 am SUMMARY Room 173B Faraday Building 1635 Faraday Avenue Committee members present: Rich Barnes, Joe Bear, Rick Blakemore, Scott Brusseau, Kurt Burkhart, Joyce Kennedy, Bob Ladwig, Bill Lantz, Bailey Noble, Harry Prigg, Guy Roney III, Diane Scheer and Julie Spitzer. Absent: Bill Huss and Leslea Meyerhoff. Staff members present: Ray Patchett, City Manager; Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director; Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director; Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst; Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner; Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector. Michael Holzmiller reviewed some of the materials contained in the Committee notebook, including a draft set of groundrules, and spoke of the need for the Committee to adopt a Mission Statement. A sample Mission Statement will be made available at the next meeting. The Committee agreed to the idea of having a facilitator at its meetings, and also to hold election for Chair and Vice-Chair at its next meeting. Ray Patchett spoke briefly to the Committee concerning their charge from the Council and that the Committee is assisting in the development of public policy. Gary Wayne reviewed the materials contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the notebook, giving a brief history of events to date concerning the reasons why the Sign Ordinance was in need of revision, as well as staffs research of other city’s sign ordinances. He stated that Carlsbad has taken a most conservative approach to drafting its ordinance; one that presented the least amount of risk to the City, should it be challenged. Questions raised by the Committee included: 1. 2. 3. 4. Would the proposed ordinance prohibit American flags along the rights-of-way in the Village placed there in celebration of a national holiday? Does any City have an existing sign ordinance that staff believes could sustain a constitutional challenge? To what extent will the City go to enforce the new sign ordinance? What kind of funding and personnel will be available for sign enforcement? PUBLIC INPUT Kip McBane urged the Committee not to throw out the baby with the bath water, and to be careful what the Committee recommendations do to civil liberties. David Hardy, Sun Cal Signs, offered to discuss the current kiosk program with the member of the Committee should they wish to do so. Bud Schlehuber spoke regarding campaign signs and that restricting them from the public right-of-way could give an unfair advantage to an incumbent. He also spoke about pole signs, specifically Tom Giblin’s, and that possibly special consideration should be given to signs that go through a roof. Bobbie Hoder SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE SUMMARY Monday, August 6,200l 7:30 am Room 173B Faraday Building 1635 Faraday Avenue Committee members present: Rich Barnes, Joe Bear, Rick Blakemore, Scott Brusseau, Kurt Burkhart, Bill Huss, Joyce Kennedy, Bob Ladwig, Bill Lantz, Leslea Meyerhoff, Bailey Noble, Harry Prigg, Guy Roney III, Diane Scheer and Julie Spitzer. Absent: none. Staff members present: Ray Patchett, City Manager; Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director; Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director; Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst; Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner; Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector Ron Ball, City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney. Also present: Marcia Bradley, Facilitator and Randal R. Morrison, Sign Law Attorney. Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair Diane Scheer was elected as Chair and Bob Ladwig as Vice-Chair. Approval of Committee Ground Rules/Procedures The Committee adopted the Ground Rules and Procedures as presented. Adoption of Committee Obiectives Staff presented suggested Committee Objectives. A second set of Objectives was submitted for consideration, by Committee Member Joyce Kennedy. Following discussion, it was agreed to move this item to the end of the agenda and form a sub-committee to study the matter and make recommendations. Approval of 7/30/01 Meetiw Summarv Questions concerning (1) titure enforcement of illegal or non-conforming signs and (2) the City providing funding for enforcement were omitted from the 7/30/O 1 summary. The summary of the July 30, 2001 meeting was approved as amended to include the two questions shown above. Leslea Meyerhoff asked that the meetings be recorded so that a complete/ comprehensive set of notes could be had (so the Committee can report to Councilmembers/Planning Commissions if they so desire). (A) Bobbie Hoder replied that with the size of the room and the fact that no microphones are being used, the quality of a recording would be highly questionable, however we could try it if it is the pleasure of the Committee. Legal /Constitutional Presentation Ron Ball, City Attorney Bon Ball, City Attorney, thanked the members for volunteering to serve on the Committee. He elaborated on the timeline - of getting the Committee’s report to Council expeditiously - in order to have a new ordinance in place by December 14th, when the urgency ordinance expires. He stated that when the courts make changes in the law, cities must respond by changing ordinances to bring them into compliance. The City established the sign ordinance in the 1950’s and began to react to Supreme Court decisions in 1981, with the advent of the 9 Metromedia Case. In 1983, the City abated the last of the billboard signs in the City (on Carlsbad Boulevard, by Lanikai Lanes). He reiterated that a sign ordinance deals with First Amendment rights. The Council appointed a Committee which reflects the values of the community. The Committee will present to the Council its best recommendation, and the Council will determine what level of risk it is willing to tolerate. Mr. Ball indicated that his office had put together both an envelope and a binder of resource materials for the Committee’s use, which he would leave with the Planning Department. Mr. Ball then introduced Randal Morrison, a Sign Law Attorney, who will assist with helping the Committee to understand the constitutionality of sign ordinances. Randal R. Morrison, Special Legal Counsel Mr. Morrison spoke with the aid of transparencies, the text of which is attached as Attachment “A.” Committee Questions/Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. (Q) Since there are master plans (Aviara and Village Redevelopment), Specific Plans (Carlsbad Company Stores) which are exempt from the sign ordinance attack by billboard companies, would it be possible to create a master plan for each quadrant of the city to encompass any areas not already covered by master plans, thus gaining greater control over sign distribution policies? (A) This would need to be researched. (Q) What about signs inciting violence? They can express an idea. (A) They can’t incite immediate action. (Q) Can the sign ordinance grandfather signs that are integral to a business - such as A-frame signs? (A) A-frames and other right-of-way signs will be governed by the government as a manager of the property. (Q) Can’t sign size be a deterrent to billboards? (A) Yes. Unwanted billboards some times get erected counter to local laws when sign companies believe local sign regulations are unconstitutional.. (Q) Concerning city rights-of-way, how close to bullet-proof can a sign ordinance be written that permits commercial and ideological signs? (A) Commercial signs are the issue since ideological signs are not prohibited. Regarding commercial signage, any exceptions weaken the City’s rationale to prohibit non-traffic control signs. (Q) Yard signs - in what category? Briefing materials provided suggests that cities cannot restrict the number, size, content or time displayed on private property. (A) Cities can regulate time, place and manner. (Q) Summarize the Lorilard case. (A) The U. S. Supreme Court held that Mass. regulations went too far in trying to protect children from tobacco signs. Technical Presentation/Overview of Proposed Ordinance Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Three sets of handouts were distributed to the Committee: 1. Comparison between existing sign ordinance sections and proposed sign ordinance sections 2. Comparison between existing sign standards and proposed sign standards 3. Comparison between existing prohibited signs and proposed prohibited signs. Mr. DeCerbo discussed in detail the materials contained in numbers 1 and 3, using photographs to cite specific examples of signs and sign clutter, about which he was talking. 10 Due to the lateness of the hour, the material covered under number 2 was continued to the next meeting for overview. Committee Questions/Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. (Q) Would the City actively pursue abatement of illegal signs or signs which will become illegal under the new sign ordinance? (A) Abatement is a costly and onerous program for a City to implement. Non-conforming signs would be allowed to remain, so long as the owner of the sign did not wish to change or update the sign. Any actions would necessitate bringing the sign into compliance with the new ordinance. (Q) Would it be possible to put a kiosk sign on private property with the owner’s permission? (A) The proposed ordinance doesn’t permit off-site signs except for real estate signs. It might be possible to draft the ordinance in such a way to identify them as real estate signs and to keep other businesses from being able to use the kiosk signs for advertising. (Q) How many billboard signs may come in? (A) This is unknown. (Q) Could a person hold a prohibited sign in the right-of-way? (A) No. (Q) Was the Acura Tennis Tournament sign illegal? (A) This was a special event and it was on the site where the event occurred. It was not illegal. (Q) In the urgency ordinance, it prohibits signs greater than 8’. Why not stick with this language? (A) This is a possibility - to help to prevent large billboard signs. (Q) Are off-site commercial/non-commercial signs allowed in the overlay zone? (A) I don’t know. (Q) Would the (Plaza Camino Real) Mall monument sign be allowed and would it be consistent with the sign ordinance. (A) (A photo was shown of a freeway oriented monument sign in an adjoining city with a number of businesses advertised.) This sign would not be allowed in Carlsbad, as a freeway oriented sign can only be for tourist/ serving businesses (e.g., restaurants, hotels, gas stations). (Q) Could the City vacate a 2’ strip adjacent to businesses to allow A-frame signs? (A) We would have to research this. (Q) Has the City determined the financial impact of the costs for businesses to come into compliance if the proposed sign code is enacted? (A) No, because you would only need to come into compliance if you wanted to change your existing sign. Public Input Rip McBane asked why the new sign ordinance is addressing campaign signs, when the stated purpose of the ordinance was to prevent billboards? Subcommittee to work on Mission StatemedObiectives Chairperson Scheer, w, and Committee Members Kennedy and Meyerhoff, along with Michael Holzmiller and Facilitator Marcia Bradley remained behind to work on the revisions to the proposed Mission Statement and Objectives. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at lo:25 a.m. Bobbie Hoder Attachment: “A” Sign Regulation - Main Legal Concepts by Randal R. Morrison 4 pages 11 SIGN REGULATION Attachment “A” MAIN LEGAL CONCEPTS copyright 2001 Randal R. Morrison / signlaw.com 1. WHICH HAT IS THE GOVERNMENT WEARING? 1. Regulator of private property 2. Manager of public property 3. Distinction important in sign regulation 2. “SPEARING” BY SIGN DISPLAY IS ONE FORM OF FREE SPEECH 1. “Speaking” by sign is protected by U.S. & California constitutions; for signs, same protection under both constitutions 2. Free speech is an ideal, not an absolute freedom 3. Reasonable regulation allowed 4. Limits on free speech must be justified 5. Ladue v. Gilleo: “While signs are a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause [of the First Amendment], they pose distinctive problems that are subject to municipalities’ police powers. Unlike oral speech, signs take up space and may obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. It is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs--just as they can, within reasonable bounds and absent censorial purpose, regulate audible expression in its capacity as noise. However, because regulation of a medium inevitably affects communication itself, it is not surprising that we [the U.S. Supreme Court] have had occasion to review the constitutionality of municipal ordinances prohibiting the display of certain outdoor signs.” Justice Stevens, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Ladue v. Gilleo (1994). 3. 4. EVERY CASE IS JUDGED ON ITS UNIQUE FACTS 1. Usual analysis: 1. Is this speech within lst Amend’t protection? 2. Is the regulation supported by a governmental interest? 1. Various weights of govt’l interests: substantial, important, compelling 3. Does the regulation actually serve that interest? 4. Tailoring - is the regulation properly limited? 5. CATEGORIES OF SPEECH 1. Main purpose of First Amendment: protect debate on issues of public controversy 2. Core speech (“noncommercial speech”): 1. Politics, religion, philosophy, science, art 2. Marketplace of ideas 3. Separate categories? definition problems 4. “Your right to say it” 3. Commercial speech - advertising: 1. Pre 1970’s - no protection at all 2. Post 1970’s - limited protection - recently reaffirmed by U.S. Supreme Court in Lorillard 4. Functional / informational: official notices, directional, warning, traffic reg’n, etc. 1. Courts not consistent in handling exceptions 1. Some insist all noncommercial speech has same dignity 12 5. 2. Others say these signs are innocuous, do not raise First Am’t issues - no debate Hierarchy of First Amendment values: 1. core speech I advocacy; 2. commercial speech; 3. “adult” material - “outer fringes of protection” 4. unprotected 5. NEUTRALITY 1. Content neutrality: reg’n not based on message 1. Commercial / noncommercial distinction - usually okay 2. Viewpoint neutrality 1. Government does not favor any speaker or message, but may use categories 2. Law not completely clear, but: 1. Viewpoint neutrality usually good enough for commercial speech regulations 2. Content neutrality - especially important for core speech 3. BUT regulations can be based on message type or content, even core speech, if sufficientlv iustified 1. Burson v Freeman - no signs w/100 feet of polls on election day; clearly core speech; upheld as serving interests of preventing voter fraud, confusion, and intimidation 2. TIME PLACE AND MANNER 3. “Easy” path to court approval 4. Requirements: 1. serves important governmental / public interest 2. content neutral (or viewpoint neutral - commercial speech?) 3. controls only time, place and manner of speech 4. reasonable 5. leaves open adequate alternatives 5. When regulations meet TPM requirements, courts almost always sustain 6. STRUCTURE AND LOCATION RULES 1. Non-communicative aspects 1. Zone restrictions 2. Size and height limits 3. Spacing and setback 4. Orientation 5. Illumination, shielding, flashing, neon etc. 6. Moving or portable 7. Building and electrical code req’ts 2. Courts almost always approve 7. PROPERTY CONCEPTS ALSO PLAY A ROLE IN SIGN REGULATION. 1. Sign posted without land owner’s consent is a trespass. 2. Residential property: 1. “Home is castle” vs. “peaceful neighborhood” 2. Political / protest yard signs - total ban is per se unconstitutional 3. Onsite “real estate for sale” - must allow 13 8. 4. Home based businesses - okay to prohibit (lower protection for commercial speech) 3. Public property: government has property rights 4. Zoning power 1. Generally okay to have different rules in different zones 2. Differing rules for different uses within same zone - usually okay 5. Signage rights and duties are property rights, not personal rights 6. Signage rights attach to and travel with the land, do not attach to businesses or groups 7. Trademark - intellectual property - local sign regs cannot require alteration of federally registered TM GOVERNMENT AS REGULATOR 1. May not favor commercial over noncommercial (core) speech (Metromedia v San Diego, 1981) 1. Doing so would invert the hierarchy of 1”’ Am’t 2. May completely ban all offsite commercial 1. Exceptions to general ban - special problems 3. Within noncommercial category, no favoritism 4. Rules based on message content are harder to justify 1. Less true for commercial speech regulations 2. But some content-based regs on core speech have been approved by U.S. Supreme Court 5. Regulations based on content of commercial signs 1. Viewpoint neutral, categorical rules - most courts approve 2. Message limits / req’ts - law unsettled 9. GOVERNMENT AS MANAGER OF PUBLIC LAND /PUBLIC FORUM ISSUES 1. Forum: a place where debate or expression takes place 2. For traditional public fora (parks, many streets), rules exactly the same as for regulatory actions 3. Designated fora - place specially created by government, may be used for debate / expression 4. For “designated fora” - law / rules highly complicated - several categories 1. Generally speaking, more flexibility allowed than when gov’t acting as a regulator 2. Gov’t may allow only commercial speech and disallow all noncommercial speech 1. opposite of regulator rule 2. inverts “hierarchy of FA values” 3. Policy must be: 1. Viewpoint neutral 2. Clear 3. Reasonable 4. Consistently enforced (1) “opening the door” dangers 5. Generally, “avoiding controversy” is not strong justification or valid criterion for exclusion 4. Policy can be changed 5. Special purpose and nature of the area help provide justification - military enclaves, historical districts, etc. 14 SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE SUMMARY Monday, August 13,200l 7:30 am Room 173B Faraday Building 1635 Faraday Avenue Committee members present: Rich Barnes, Joe Bear, Rick Blakemore, Scott Brusseau, Kurt Burkhart, Bill HUSS, Joyce Kennedy, Bob Ladwig, Bill Lantz, Bailey Noble, Harry Prigg, Guy Roney III, and Diane Scheer. Absent: Leslea Meyerhoff and Julie Spitzer. Staff members present: Ray Patchett, City Manager; Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director; Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director; Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst; Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner; Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector, and Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director. Also present: Marcia Bradley, Facilitator and Randal R. Morrison, Sign Law Attorney. Approval of 7/30/01 MeetinP Summary Bob Ladwig asked that the summary be corrected to reflect that he was not a member of the sub-committee that worked on the Committee’s Mission. The summary of the August 6,200l meeting was approved as amended to include the above correction. Public Input Andre LeCault, owner of Millennium Arts, showed transparencies of a number of signs and banners from other cities, and recommended that consideration be given to using something of this sort to help promote Carlsbad. Doug Char-tier distributed information re: 1) ACLU challenge of political yard signs; and 2) free speech victory in Texas concerning displaying political posters. He stated the Committee should advocate an open and vigorous political campaign here in Carlsbad, and not one favoring just the incumbents. Kip McBain spoke in favor of allowing political signs. His experience is that with $3-$4 K a successful campaign can be run with the aid of signs, whereas it costs $30-$40 K for mailings. It is too difficult to get enough coverage; the corporate control of numerous parcels is unfair; and the individual living in a residential rental unit cannot give permission to post signs. Gary Nessim stated that Carlsbad already has an ordinance that prevents people from posting signs on public property, and that nobody enforces the ordinance. Directions to realtors are that signs should not be posted in the public right-of-way; and they choose to ignore them. He said he would like the ability to erect more than one campaign sign for the candidate(s) of his choice. He said that he regularly takes down illegal signs posted around his neighborhood and on Carlsbad Village Drive. He ended his comments by saying the City should enforce the sign ordinance. (Q) Is it illegal for a citizen to take down sign in the public right-of-way that aren’t theirs? (A) This will be placed on the next agenda and Pat Kelly, Principal Building Inspector, will address the question. Technical Presentation/Overview of Proposed Ordinance Chris DeCerbo finished his overview of the materials handed out at the previous meeting, dealing specifically with the comparison between existing sign standards and proposed sign standards. Following the question and answer period, a member of the Committee proposed a motion to request staff to revise the proposed ordinance and strip it of all changes not relating to unconstitutional issues, in order to 15 allow the Committee members time for more in-depth study of the recommended changes. (The motion died due to lack of a second.) Following discussion on political signs, Randal Morrison stated that nationwide, excessive signage tends to be in the area of religion and not politics. Mr. Morrison stated he had written a paper on political signs, and offered to make it available to the Committee. Mr. DeCerbo stated that the new ordinance is overall an increase in the amount of signage you could have under the existing ordinance. He then addressed the following questions: (Q) How long did you study the sign issues and how long did it take you to get up to speed? (A) I have been studying them for well over a year and I’m not up to speed yet. (Q) Why are gas stations given preferential treatment over hotels/motels and restaurants with regard to pole signs? (A) Signage rights derive from use on the land. In the instance of gas stations, State law mandates that the price of gasoline be posted. This recommendation acknowledges that freeway travelers have a need (based upon health and safety considerations) to be able to locate gas stations. Therefore, tall pole signs which are readily visible from the freeways can be justified. In comparison, restaurants and motels do not provide a service that necessarily requires freeway visibility. (Q) In other areas we see signs with symbols on them for gas, food, lodging. This somewhat eliminates the need for 35’ signs and it does not reveal what brand of gas. (A) This is correct and is a good alternative to allowing tall pole signs along the freeway. (Q)-The Four Seasons Aviara has four flags. If approved, and this resort hotel were required to eliminate one flag, what financial restitution would be made to this property? Why cannot existing flags be grandfathered in? (A) The Aviara Master Plan has a sign program that was approved by ordinance that allows four flags. Therefore, they would not have to comply with the amended sign ordinance (which would allow only three flags). (Q) Which companies in town have an approved sign program ? (A) There are probably 130 approved existing sign programs. The sign programs meet the requirements of the existing code. The companies with the approved sign programs will have to do nothing about compliance with the new sign ordinance unless they wish to amend their sign program to add more signage. They would have to bring the entire sign program into compliance. (Q) Are developer and real estate interests the only two where signage square footage is increased? Again, if so, what is the rationale? (A) This is not correct. The sign ordinance is proposed for amendment to generally allow an increase in sign area for all uses. (Q) How does the proposed ordinance relate to the Village area? (A) It doesn’t at this point. (Q) Could the present ordinance be left in place as it is and the constitutionality issue addressed in addendum form? (A) The City Attorney has requested that I draft such an alternative. (Q) Are you proposing content restrictions on the flags you allow, or can they contain political, religious or commercial messages? (A) There is no content restriction on flags. (Q) Project under construction signs - - - there are certain mandatory notice signs for proposed projects. Are they being outlawed, in not, where are they allowed? (A) These signs are required public notice for all in-fill residential projects and are not regarded as a sign in the ordinance. Following discussion of the proposed sign ordinance, six Committee members indicated they had questions or issues with some standards being proposed. They were asked to email them to the Chair, who will in turn get them out the Committee to expedite discussion at the next meeting. 16 Mission Statement The Committee briefly discussed the proposed Mission Statement and suggested the addition of the word “proposed” on the second line. The first two lines will now read “The mission of the Carlsbad Sign Ordinance Committee is to hold public meetings regarding the City of Carlsbad proposed updated sign ordinance, scheduled to become.. . . . .” With this addition, the Mission Statement was adopted by the Committee. Review of Discussion Points/Issues List from PlanninP Commission Hearing Gary Wayne reviewed the items contained on the handout that outlined issues and questions raised at the June 6th Planning Commission hearing. (Q) What middle ground could you come to for A-frames ? Could you have hanging signs? (A) We would allow any on-premise sign that meets the sign regulations. On-premise could be out in the immediate public area. As a replacement for A-frames, staff had proposed signs that are perpendicular to the buildings. (Q) Do A-frames have a potential to create liability for the City? (A) Yes, not only for the hazard they might present on the sidewalk, but they could also cause problems with other interest groups wanting to put up an A- frame to contain a message other than that advertising a business. (Q) What is the Coastal Zone boundary, is it 1,000 feet from the ocean? (A) About l/3 of the City is within the Coastal Zone. (Mr. Wayne, using the aerial photo on the wall, outlined the approximate boundary lines. He further stated that if the proposed ordinance comes into conflict with Coastal regulations, the Coastal regulations would prevail. Meeting adjourned at 10: 10 am. Bobbie Hoder 17 SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE SUMMARY Monday, August 20,200l 7:30 am Rooms 1 and 2 Safety Center 2560 Orion Way Committee members present: Rich Barnes, Joe Bear, Rick Blakemore, Scott Brusseau, Kurt Burkhart, Bill Huss, Joyce Kennedy, Bob Ladwig, Bill Lantz, Leslea Meyerhoff, Bailey Noble, Harry Prigg, Guy Roney III, Diane Scheer and Julie Spitzer. Absent: none. Staff members present: Ray Patchett, City Manager; Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director; Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director; Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst; Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner; Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector, and Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director. Also present: Marcia Bradley, Facilitator and Randal R. Morrison, Sign Law Attorney. Approval of 8/13/01 Meetinp Summarv The summary of the August 13,200l meeting was approved as submitted. Public Input Al Wanamaker stated he is concerned about not allowing A-frame signs. The businesses in Redevelopment fought long and hard to get A-frames and they are very important to all those who have them. He stated that the existing ordinance should be enforced and that signs in Redevelopment should remain as they are. (Q) How negative an impact would there be if (A-frame) signs (were) withdrawn? (A) Can’t put a dollar amount, but it would be significant. (Q) (4 Could you share your story about the importance of signs. (Mr. Wanamaker told of a Senior Day sponsored by NCTD and how his A-frame sign [a picture of which had appeared on a coupon] attracted several seniors from San Diego.) Kelli Moors spoke on campaign signs and how they help with name recognition. Signs should help voters to become more informed with issues and candidates. We should have open campaigns with as much information as possible available to all the voters. The new ordinance should continue the ability for candidates to responsibly place signs. (Q) (4 How much more exposure will candidates have with campaign signs and how will it affect the cost of candidates running for election? I spent approximately $3K and would probably have had to spend at least $5K without the signs. (Q) 6-9 Would you say that campaign signs serve as educational tools for children? Yes. (Q) (4 Did you utilize signs on private property? Yes. Kip McBane stated that campaign signs raise awareness of all campaign issues. They provide exposure to ideas. We shouldn’t prohibit campaign signs on either public or private property, including the public right-of- way. He further indicated that by prohibiting signs on automobiles, that sounds as if license plate frames and bumper stickers are included in the prohibition. It sounds as if we are allowing commercial signs but non- commercial signs will be banned. 18 Carleton Lund said that we are facing austere times. Not having signs in the right-of-way for homes for sale will severely impact the ability of those who wish to sell their homes. San Marcos opted for A-frame signs instead of pound-down signs for realtors. The kiosk (subdivision) signs are very prudent and should be kept. He went on to say he is desirous of having a “Carlsbad” sign at the entryway on Carlsbad Blvd. and asked about the “neon impact.” (Q) How about the directional signs to subdivisions that sprout up? The human signs? (4 (I) do not feel human signs have a negative impact. (Q) What is the impact of putting up open house signs? (4 Extremely substantial. Richard Jones stated he agrees (with what’s been said) on the campaign signs. The average person would not be able to afford to run a campaign is we take away their ability to post signs and that you should be able to have several signs in your yard if you support multiple candidates. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, offered a clarification on the numbers of allowed campaign signs. When the ordinance originally went to Planning Commission, it did limit signs to one (1) per lot. That has been changed to 8 sq ft of signage in addition to the other allowed signage on a residential lot and 16 sq ft on a non-residential lot without a restriction on the exact number of campaign signs. (Q) (4 (Q) (4 (Q) (4 (Q) (4 (Q) (4 (Q) (4 (Q) (4 (Q) (4 How is the election season defined? (In the proposed ordinance) Candidates may put up their signs 45 days in advance of the election and must remove them within 10 days following the election. The existing ordinance allows signs to be posted 30 days prior to election. According to the current ordinance, all off-site real estate signs are prohibited in the public right- of-way. Correct. Why are you changing the current political sign part of the ordinance? In the current ordinance, we have no prohibition of campaign signs in the public right-of-way. With the new ordinance, we are trying to minimize the risks to the extent possible. If we allow certain types of signs in the right-of-way, whether commercial or non-commercial, it tends to open up the door to undesirable signs. Can’t you limit the size? Yes. What about the sign at Ranch0 Carlsbad? It is on their own property, it is an on-site sign. If one part of the ordinance is challenged, would the court throw out the entire ordinance? It depends on the judge. In looking at the values of the City, if we would prefer to take some risk and allow A-frames, etc, but prohibit billboards by size, can we do it? There are drafting techniques that can be used. The question is how much risk is Council willing to take. There is a risk of being sued and a risk of losing. Will the draft alternative ordinance be finished in time for the Committee to see it? That is up to the City Attorney. Based on instructions from Council, the recommendation would be that the Committee focus on the policy issues. Ray Patchett, City Manager, said that both he and the City Attorney has sent memos to the City Council (concerning a draft [alternative] ordinance). It shouldn’t have any affect on the policy discussion/decision. 19 Presentation on Sinn Code Enforcement Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector gave a presentation on manner in which the existing sign ordinance is enforced, as regards Code Enforcement. The City is both pro-active and reactive in its enforcement. Following is the text of the power point presentation: - Sign Ordinance 3 Located in two separate chapters of the Municipal Code 18.20 - Adopting the Uniform Sign Code V. Enforcing the Sign Ordinance Carlsbad Municipal Code 18.20 and 2 1.2 1 Technical requirements for building a sign structure Permit required 21.41 - Zoning standards for signs - Sign Ordinance 3 Simplifying the administrative portions and standards of the ordinance Combine both into a single source for all requirements - Clear, concise, understandable - Less ambiguous Sign Code Enforcement Philosophy 3 Generally react to complaints. - Respond to complaints from neighbors, competitors, staff referrals (other City Depts.) - Proactive generally with banners VI. 3 Proactive enforcement of signs in the ROW - Informational letters to interest groups - Personal contact with those placing signs Sweeps at regular intervals Code Enforcement Staffing 3 Current staff allocation - 2.5 Employees plus Senior Building Inspector 3 Council approved additional position in 2001-02 budget and person has been hired. 3 Authorized for $27,500 Overtime - Weekend enforcement is occurring on a regular and non-routine basis. Fiscal Year-to-date Complaints (a graph was shown) Sign Code Enforcement Process Violation of permit requirement or standards Standard letter writing and possible criminal or administrative citation. Illegal signs in the ROW Subject to removal w/o Notice by City staff 20 VII. Removal Authorized by CMC 1820.080 (b) VIII. Pro-Active Sign Code Enforcement Activity Levels 3 Average approx. 30 signs removed from the ROW each week 3 Weekend enforcement becoming more necessary -5O- 100 signs removed when weekend is staffed Code Enforcement Future 3 Currently building a complaint tracking baseline IX. => Shifting into a fully developed City X. 3 Code Enf. staffing needs for build-out TBD (end of PowerPoint presentation) (Q) (4 Is it legal for citizens to take down signs? It is best not to get involved. It’s better to call the City and let us deal with the signs. In the Code it states that signs “may be removed by any officer of employee of the City of Carlsbad designated to do so.. .” (Q) (4 (Q) (4 Is there data that correlate signs in the public right-of-way with traffic accidents? Not to my knowledge. Have there been any lawsuits over A-frame signs? No lawsuits, to my knowledge, however we do get complaints (nothing formal). People in wheel- chairs or mom’s with strollers have complained about tables & chairs and the signs impeding their progress on the sidewalks. (Q) Is it true that with four infractions, you could get a misdemeanor charge? (4 That’s possible. (Q) (4 Can it go all the way up to criminal charges? There can be fines and a hearing. We start with a “no fee” citation, and then it progresses up to $100, $200 and $500 fines. (Q) (4 What is done currently? We enforce the existing ordinance. (Q) (4 Technically you could pull down all the homes for sale signs in the right-of-way all over the City, correct? If they are on-site are they in violation? Some are in violation and some aren’t. The right-of-way is typically 10’ from the face of curb. (Q) 6 (4 Is the sign post considered part of the square footage? No, it is the face of the sign. (Q) (4 Is there anything in the ordinance you’d like to delete to make your job easier? The new ordinance is less ambiguous than the old ordinance. (Q) (4 What about the Callaway Building 7 sign on the end of the building on College? We are currently addressing Callaway’s sign programs with them. (Q) (A) If the new sign ordinance passed allowing kiosk signs, etc. would it be vulnerable? It can be handled in such a way to reduce risk. 21 (Q) If there is a way to minimize the risk, why weren’t we presented with it? (4 Staff focused on minimizing risk and taking the most conservative approach. (Q) (4 A-frames and political signs are important. Can the City deed 3’ out from curb to allow businesses to put A-frames, or extend an easement to allow A-frames? It is up to the Committee to discuss and decide what you’d like to recommend to Council. Randal Morrison spoke to the Committee concerning political signs. An outline of his presentation is attached. He stated that rules can be different in different situations. The test is whether they are clear, reasonable and easily enforced. (Q) (4 Would the new ordinance limit the ability to put up holiday decorations? No. They are excluded as not being signs, unless they are used year-round. How would neighborhood watch signs be treated? They are allowed. They are similar to government signs. DISCUSSION / MOTIONS In reviewing the vote count on the motions, various members of the Committee had to leave as the Note: meeting progressed. The vote count represents those still in attendance at the time of the vote. The Chair only votes in case of a tie, so her vote is not reflected.) Kiosk Signs They are necessary to help the public find subdivisions. It is important to maintain the uniformity of these signs. Members of the Committee expressed their opinion that they want kiosk signs to remain the way they are. Motion: Recommend that the kiosk sign program be retained and the uniform design of the signs be updated. That the language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks associated with allowing these signs. (Vote to approve - unanimous (14 for)) A-frame Shs (Q) (A) Why not allow A-frames throughout the City? When the Village Master Plan was adopted, Council agreed to allow A-f?ame signs in the Village, but nowhere else in the City. Debbie Fountain stated that if the policy decision is made to not allow signs in the public right-of-way, but only on private property, they would follow up with a revision to the Village Redevelopment Master Plan. Discussion: They are a business necessity; City should continue to regulate the size; they are good for store visibility. Motion: Recommend to City Council to continue to allow A-Frame signs in the Village and continue to prohibit them in the rest of the City. (Vote to approve - 9 for / 2 no / 2 abstain) SDecial Event SiPns Discussion: How can we create excitement and awareness of events and ambiance without some off-site special event signs. Motion: Allow special event signage on-site and off-site and in public right-of-way, with appropriate time limits in accordance with legalities as needed for the proposed ordinance. (Vote to approve - unanimous - 13 yes) 22 Political CampaiPn Signs On Private Proper@ Motion: That Political Campaign signs be allowed on private property according to the staff recommendation included in proposed ordinance (8 sq fi). (Vote to approve - 10 for / 1 no / 2 abstain) In Public RiPht-Of-Wav Motion: Recommend continuation of allowing political signs in public right-of-way as in the existing ordinance while minimizing legal risk to the City. (Perpetuate current process.) (Vote to approve - 12 for / 1 abstain) Amount of SiPnaPe for Commercial Buildinps Motion: Recommend adoption of sign ordinance as it is proposed for amendment, allowing 1 sq. ft of signage per lineal foot of building frontage. (Vote to approve - unanimous) Real Estate Sipns in Public Rbht-of-way Discussion: Realtors would like to put up their signs without restrictions; signs may not look nice but are important to realtor’s livelihood; need to consider current economic conditions; allows one type of business an advantage over others; needs to be fair to both business and resident’s needs; draft language to restrict time (of posting signs); and opens door to billboard companies. Motion: Recommend sign ordinance as it is proposed as relates to real estate signs, which does not permit real estate signs in the public right-of-way. (Vote to approve - 8 for / 1 no / 1 abstain) Banners in public right-of-wav Discussion: Should have for holidays, for museums, by artists (not commercial e.g. to promote a business or product). Motion: Recommend that banners in the public right-of-way be allowed in and limited to the Redevelopment Area and that Redevelopment review its current program for expansion of non-commercial messages placed on banners. (Vote to approve - 8 for / 1 no) SUB-COMMITTEE TO DRAFT COMMITTEE REPORT Leslea Meyerhoff, Diane Scheer and Scott Brusseau volunteered to draft the report and distribute it to the Committee for review prior to the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:05 am. Bobbie Hoder Attachment: Randal Morrison: Political Signs 23 POLITICAL SIGNS I. II. THREE BASIC MODELS: A. TOTAL BAN THROUGHOUT THE CITY - ALL PLACES AND TIMES PER SE UNCONSTITUTIONAL B. tOTAL BAN WITH TIME-BASED EXEMPTIONS . POLITICAL SIGNS ONLY BEFORE ELECTIONS . NOT PER SE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT ALMOST ALWAYS INVALIDATED C. ALLOW SOME POLITICAL SIGNS AT ALL TIMES, INCREASE THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE ELECTION . ONLY A FEW CASES ON POINT, BUT THEY DO APPROVE l ALL THE TIME RULES D. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL . SUBSTITUTION PROVISION ALLOWS POLITICAL OR OTHER NONCOMMERCIAL AT ANY TIME E. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES / ZONES . TOTAL SIZE LIMITS OKAY . DO NOT LIMIT ON BASIS OF CANDIDATE, ISSUE OR RESIDENT . ILLUMINATION RULES OKAY . FLAGS SEPARATE OR PART OF TOTAL? F. FOR PUBLIC LAND . LIMIT TO CERTAIN AREAS, BAN IN OTHERS - OKAY . POLITICAL AND ALL OTHER NONCOMMERCIAL . FLAGS? PRE-ELECTION RULES A. FOR ALL ZONES: l ALL NONCOMMERCIAL . HOW MUCH TIME BEFORE ELECTION . HOW MUCH TIME AFTER ELECTION . PERMIT FEES -NOT ON A PER SIGN BASIS . REMOVAL DEPOSIT . SIZE AND ILLUMINATION ROLES OKAY . STRUCTURAL RULES OKAY l LIMIT ON TOTAL NUMBER: RISKY . OWNERS CONSENT B. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES ’ INCREASE, OR ONLY CONTINUE SUBSTITUTION? C. RESIDENTIAL ZONES . INCREASE OR LEAVE STANDARD? D. PUBLIC PROPERTY . CERTAIN AREAS, CERTAIN TIMES . MUST APPLY TO ALL NONCOMMERCIAL 24 SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE SUMMARY Monday, August 27,200l 7:30 am Rooms 1 and 2 Safety Center 2560 Orion Way Committee members present: Rich Barnes, Joe Bear, Rick Blakemore, Scott Brusseau, Kurt Burkhart, Bill Huss, Joyce Kennedy, Bill Lantz, Leslea Meyerhoff, Bailey Noble, Harry Prigg, Guy Roney III, Diane Scheer and Julie Spitzer. Absent: Bob Ladwig. Staff members present: Ray Patchett, City Manager; Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director; Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director; Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst; Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner; Pat Kelley, Principal Building Inspector, Ron Ball, City Attorney and Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney. Also present: Marcia Bradley, Facilitator and Randal R. Morrison, Sign Law Attorney. Approval of 8/20/01 Meeting Summary A discussion was held on the fact that there is a difference in the text of the motions in the summary and those in the Draft Report of the Committee. The Committee recommended that the Summary Report reflect that the summary was “an abbreviation” of what appears in the report. The summary of the August 20, 2001 meeting was unanimously approved as amended to reflect the above addition. Public Input Dale Condy, Gems of La Costa, stated he was concerned about the restrictions on signage for small businesses. Shari West asked about signs for historic sites and cultural facilities, which engender community pride and help citizen’s find these places. She stated that all over the country, standardized signs are used to promote these types of facilities and services. The Committee spoke in favor of having such signage. Michael Holzmiller suggested the possibility of putting something on the kiosk sign program to allow this type of signage Chris DeCerbo stated that historical markers are not considered signs, but as “information signs” required by a governmental agency. Randal Morrison indicated that signs that are directional signs are non-commercial speech. Most judges would accept them as “functional information.” Kip McBane spoke concerning campaign signs on private property and asked if we are giving businesses twice the right to have campaign signs as is being given in the residential area. Staff commented that the City gets more complaints about signage in residential areas and less in non- residential. When you consider that residential lots are average 7,500 sq. ft. (allowing 8 sq fl per lot) and the minimum lot in non-residential is 1 acre (allowing 16 sq ft) there is no disparity. Committee Discussion/Approval of Final Report Chairperson Scheer had the Committee focus on each part of the report, beginning with the title page, asking for comments or corrections. Following is a re-cap of comments: 25 . . . b . (Throughout the report) The downtown area is alternately referred to as the “Village,” “Redevelopment Area” and “downtown business district.” The Committee agreed to the consistent use of the term of Village Redevelopment Area throughout. (With the establishment of the second Redevelopment Area, the word “Village” differentiates clearly the area to which the Committee is referring.) Introduction: - paragraph 1 Use bullet points to make the eight key areas of concern stand out, rather than being buried in the text. Kiosk Signs: No changes. A-Frame Signs: The motion was corrected to read as follows: “Continue to allow A-Frame signs in the Village. Continue to prohibit them in the rest of the City. Encourage downtown merchants to continue exploring other types of projecting signs such as those that hang perpendicular to the building facade above the sidewalks. The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Special Events: The motion was corrected to read as follows: “To allow special event signage on- site and off-site and in the public right-of-way, with appropriate time limits, distance or other appropriate conditions. The Committee also recommends that language be added to the sign ordinance to minimize any legal risks to the City associated with allowing these signs. Political Campaign Signs: On Private Property - no changes. Political Campaign Signs: In Public Right-of-Way - no changes. Amount of Sign Area for Commercial Sites: Questions were again raised about Sign Programs adopted as a part of a Specific Plan, Master Plan or by ordinance and if and when they needed to come into compliance with the new Sign Ordinance. Staff responded that only if the Sign Programs discussed wished to increase their signage would it trigger coming into compliance with the new Sign Ordinance. Real Estate Signs In Public Right-of-Way: The last sentence of the discussion paragraph was amended to read: “We had concerns as well as to whether any allowance would weaken the prohibition against billboards.” Lamppost Banners in Public Right-of-Way: The use of banners to add color and interest, as well as to promote events drew a considerable amount of discussion each time it was on the agenda. The word “lamppost” was added to clarify that only this type of banner is being recommended for approval, as opposed to the types of banners which span a street or open area. Language was also added that the banners must be installed by the City. This type of banner is currently allowed in the Village Redevelopment Area and there was interest in expanding the program to other areas of the City (e.g., along Armada Street for the April, 2002 event, ARTSPLASH, or to promote events at the Museum of Music Making or GIA). The Planning Director stated that if Council approves the use of lamppost banners outside the Village Redevelopment Area, staff would work with the City Attorney to come up with parameters. Randal Morrison stated it is best to limit the banners to community events as it is harder to justify and/or regulate if you allow non-community events to be advertised. Also they should be limited to short-term events. Discussion ensued about types of events to be included/excluded. Randal Morrison mentioned that the substitution clause may not favor commercial speech over non-commercial speech as a regulator. Following the vote by the Committee to request that Council consider exploring the use of lamppost banners, installed by the City, in areas outside the City, Randal Morrison stated that billboard companies tend to focus on permanent signs as opposed to temporary signs. Also, since the signs would be in the public right-of-way, the City has greater latitude when speaking as the property owner. He went on to pose the question of how to choose between events to be promoted. The City Manager responded that similar situations have arisen about groups and event sponsors asking to advertise on the water bills. The rule has been that only events that are City sponsored are allowed to be advertised. A question was raised if this sponsorship included an event receiving some City funding. Mr. Patchett responded that funding doesn’t determine whether it is a City sponsored event. With the above changes, the Committee accepted the report. At the close of the discussion, Michael Holzmiller assured the Committee they would be provided with the information given to both the Planning Commission and City Council when this item goes forward. 26 The sub-committee was thanked for their work on preparing the final report and the Committee was thanked for their hard work and being able to bring the work of the Committee to its conclusion in the time allotted by Council. Marsha Bradley was thanked for her services as a facilitator. Randal Morrison was thanked for his invaluable legal input. Diane Scheer was thanked for her excellent job as Chair. Staff was thanked for their assistance. Bobbie Hoder 27 P CD u 0 A- D 3 Q P CD r) 0 3 3 m 3 Q QJ -8 0 3 v) B-K3 /(b, 363 c4-./8&/ w93 m m m w n n 3 -. v) tn -B 0 3 m QJ CD 3 m 3 CD r) 0 3 3 CD I m QJ -. 0 3 0 c) I. CD r) -. < m m iis v) II: CD 3 G QJ 3 Q c I. v) I. s 3 8 3 4 CD 3 n s Q m. 3 n I. I. N CD 3 CD 3 n CD j- u a fir 2 -. 0 3 0 0 ii: u u a c m. cn 111. 0 3 v) QJ 3 Q 2 3 CD CD Q 0 s c) 3 0 n v) m n, Q ? 8 3 m t2 nJ m Q z! ia Q Q I. C n, 3 3 CD (LD 0 S fD cn 3 n 0 m 0 u u 0 A s 3 m. II 0 3 Ql n, S Q I. 3 a 3 Q 3 Q S 8 v) a S OI I. 3 3 G m. 3 . -. m. Q 0 n- u a c n, 3 Q v) I. 0 3 tl m 0 OP am -. - m N CD =2 3 m. v) 2 cn- -. 0 0 3Q n, 0 3 3 n 0 3 3 n, 53 -m - cn 9 u s 7 0 3 u S u -. r) m v) - mu -7 CD v) ID 3 G -. 0 3 cn 'z v) S 0 < CD 7 -. CD z u \ CD m rD 7 531 m. 0 13 m K cn fir =R . z m . 5 \ i7i m. s . s 1 n r) QJ 3 u m E’ s v) 6’ s cn l -. m CD < CD s cn G’ s cn E’ 1 Q m. 3 9 m. 0 s a, 5? m. 0 cn x fir m 3’ s m m s c) Q m. c 0 s n D +l is 3 CD cn 5 s m - < v) cn s CD v) P m r) 0 3 3 (P s Q a mm 0 s cn /\ mm 0 v) 77 v) I cn s c) Q mm C VB v) vm 0 s IO --I r CD r) 0 3 3 -. s CD CD aJ c) CD QJ Q Q ID Q v) 0 S u Q (11 mm 0 1 QJ s 3 =c 0 \ 3 K -. 0 tn 7i v) -. a 3 u -I 0 ul CD Q cn cn 0 r, m. QJ 3 cn vm CD Q m 0 3 Ei -i T CD r) 0 3 3 m. s CD CD m F . m s m. s F. 3 QJ m. N CD ui m 0 z v. s a n, s ‘< c) m m Q Q CD Q m cn CD v) 6’ - 3 CD s Q mm n s Ei 1 0 s v) - VI \ m. Q n 0 n U U a U ii! 0 z m U m n -I aJ n 0 3 3 m. N CD 3 Ql s ‘< m. s CD m QlJ Q Q v. 3 m Q CD Q -. B s m G’ s ar m CD 0 s CA v. Fi3- m s Q 0 =k I iis n 0 v) sr 2 iII d 1 m m cn G’ I 0 is -. s QJ s 3 3 CD s Q m 5 n a 5a Ql 8 0 n w. QJ fi? Q U 7 0 U 0 v) m Q 0 7 Q -. m G =R 7 m (7 0 3 3 fD 3 Q 11) m. 0 3 -. 3 n S Q CD Q -I 3 r m 0 3 U 7 -. C m U 7 0 U CD 3 a, r) r) 0 T Q -. 3 a 0 5 m - + r n, U 0 m. -. r) m 0 z IID Q < a, CD m \ 0 u m \ -2 n n 0 s 3 m. s -. 3 -. -i I CD r) 0 3 0 ;i -. I QJ s n CD * z 3 n, m n 0 v) CD 8 n S 7 m s QJ -- 0 s m. n n QJ 3 w. s ar Q Q CD Q 0 z U 0 m. z -. u m 0 I;n cn mm a s cn n n s cn -* iis 8 ui s cn n m - 3 3 CD I Q v) 5 m n OI m. s 5 CD 3 U QJ G' 1, cn Em s cn -. s cn 5’ s 0 a -. s 0) s CD X -. # -. s 0 z 211 3 n CD 3 7 r) 0 3 3 rD 3 m. a, D 3 0 s J 0 cn mm a s D -I m fu . I) 0 TL Q 0 CD v) tn S U U S u U 0 m. n m m m EF II CD n 0 3 3 fD U fD 1 3 -. CD U I 0 7 7 0 U 0 cn fD Q 0 s 3 Q m Q cn mm s 7 Q 3 8 0 3 z 3 I- (II 3 123 -0 0 m W QJ s s m \ cn mm s m s I n 77 S 2 w S Yc 1 m 3 n S n CA n 0 FL- w z cn v) CD 01 S n c) S ‘< 7J 0 s m ‘< w : n 7cI m. n 7T W a, 77 CD 3 0 is n II o&J 3 u i? tQ n 0” CD W m 0) 7 n ’ W a -. (D ‘< z 0 I CD n T m. n r W a, 3 CD v) n (7W ZO a,cr m. 1 n W -. l- ru 1 i3 I- QJ Q s 5’ * < -. n CD I n 0 ‘< 8 77 CD s -I CD Q ‘< n u -. a s CD CA n r CD m 7 n r m -. 1 n W m. I: S v) cn 7 Q -8 3 a, 3 n -ID -8 -8 N CD n 0 3 3 -8 s CD iD 0 cn s