HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 2848, .
.... • ORIGINAL
ORDINANCE NO. 2848
ORDINANCE OF '!'HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF l'ALO ALTO
AMw.ND!NG VARIOUS PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS)
OF '1'HE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REGULATION OF A~rniNG SIGNS AND WINDOW SIGNS AND
MODIFYING ALLOWABLE COMBINATIONS OF SIGNS
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 16.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal
.. Code hereby is amended to add the following· definition:
''S(b) AWNING. The term 'awning' means a shelter,
projecting over public property, supported entirely from
the exterior wall of a building and composed of a col
lapsible frame covered completely with non-rigiO. material.''
SEC'riON 2. Section 16.20.180 hereby is added to the
Palo Alto Hunicipal Code to read as f~llows:
"16.20.180 All-ming signs. Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to prohibit the erecting and placing
of awning signs, subject to the requirements of this
section.
(a) Type of sign~_l:mitation. Awning signs shall be
limited to t.hose si9ns printed, painted, fixed, marked,
stamped, or otherwise impressed upon the surface of an
awning covering.
(b)· Area. The maximum awning sign area on any awning
shall be equal to the area allowed, by reference to table 3
(Wall Signs) ;.., .:-.·~·the wall from which the a\\'Iling is supported.
However,.. on ar:y ·:·F:l.ll the agg1:egate of the wall sign .:;.rea
en said-wall pi·cR the P.wning sign area, on an awning or
awnings supported from said wall, shall not exceed the
maximum wall sign area allowed on said wall.
(c) !!~ight. No part of any awning sign shall extend
above the top level of the w~ll from which it is supported.n
SECTION 3. Section 16.20.200 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code hereby is amended to read as follows:
"16.20.200 Combinations of signs. In each place
of business or occupancy there shall be permitted the
following combinations of signs:
(a) Where there is a freestanding sign, any one of
·the·f~llowing: a flat wall sign, a projecting wall sign,
or an awning sign.
·(b) Where there is no freestanding sign, any combina
tion of two of the following~ A flat wall sign, a projecting
wall sign, an awning sign.
(c) On corner lots, each frontage shall be treated
separately for the purposes of subsections (a) ~nd (b) .
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
cnapter, the architectur~l review board ~f t~e city rna~.
disapprove one type of s1gn where a cornb1natJ.on of t.\·Io or
more types is permitted."
• .....
SECTION 4. Section 16.20.190 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code 1s amended to add subsection (i), to read as follows~
"{i) Window signs. A place of business which
sells goods or services to consumers may install and
maintain signs on the interior face of a window of the
premises or in a position inside such place of business,
otherwise viewable through a window of the premises,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) No more than twenty percent (20%) of the total
window space on a wall may be covered by window signs
at any time.
(2) A sign affixed to the interior face of a
window and a sign inside a place of business, any point
on which is within three (3) feet of any point on the
interior face of a window, through which window said
sign may be viewed from outside such place of business,
shall be deemed to be a window sign for the purposes
of the window coverage limitation of this section.
The full area of any window sign shall be used when
window coverage is calculated for purposes of this
section.
(3)
stitute a
be exempt
section.
(4)
signs."
Merchandise on display, which does not con
sign (as defined in Section 16.20.010), shall
from the window coverage limitation of this
No sign permit shall bP required for window
SECTION 5. Subsection (e) hereby is added to Section
16.20.230 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
11 (e) Signs painted in permanent media on the interior
surface of windows, which signs are rendered nonconforming
due to window sign amendments to Chapter 16.20 of 1975:
Two years from the date of effectiveness of subsection (i)
of Section 16.20.190."
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the changes to the
Palo Alto Municipal Code set forth in this ordinance have no
substantial environmental impact.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective upon the
commencement of the thirty-~irst day after the day of its passage.
IN'l,RODUCED: March lOJ 1975
PASSED; April 7, 1975
AYES: Beahrs, Comstock, Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Rosenbaum, Sher
NOES;·. Clay, Berwald
APPROVED:
~71· ~
~.0--~"J
ee , 'Jl cy\_..
\J! ~-.....: ps:-x ... t
OLL...J CTtid<ailai?J?,
p nspection Services
' -2-
. •
November 27 7 1974
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Attentior~ Policy and Procedures Committee
Subject: Sign Ordinance Revision to Permit Awning
~gn and to Regulate Window Signs
Members of the Council:
• REVISED
At its meeting Aug\tSt 19, 1974, the City Council directed staff to prepare
an ordinance for review by the Committee on Policy and Pt'ocedures which
would (1) permit signs on awnings and (2) regttlate the use of paper or
painted signs in windows of businesses by limiting to 20 percent the area
of window that may ·be--covered by signs·.
~wning SJJt~
Chapter 16.20 presendy prohibita signs on awnings because such signs are
interpreted to be marquee signs: nNo eign shall be placed upon the roof or
on the face of any marquee except on a theater.". (Section 16.20.110)
·.:.he draft ordinance attached amends Section 16.20. 010 to add Euhsection 5 (b)
which defines an awning and distinguishes it from a marquee. It also
adds Section 16.20.180 which specifies the type of signs permitted on an
awning and the maxireum area allowed for such signs.
In setting size limits. staff reeo.iimends deductin:; the area of
awning signs from the total wall sign area permitted under Table 3 of
the sign code. The inherent problem in basing awning sign areaon wall
sign ar2a is that a shop which wants only an awni.ng sign could have. a fairly
large one. The onue. will thus fall on the Architectural Review Board
to keep the sign message in proportion with .the awning itself. lk>wevet-7
because awnings will vary 1 ~ size. the alternative of setting a fixed al
lowable area for all awnin~ signs ·did not seem equitable.
The draft o~dinance ~evises Section 16.20~200 to add awning signs to the
variouS combinations of si'gns which are permitted orid, at the request
of the Chief Building Inspector, -to eliminate reference to roof sigqs
which are no longex permitted.
CMR:604:4
..
--------------------• • Council was concernE!d .. thS,t awning signs be permitted subject to mainte
nance and upgrading. The Chief Building Inspector indicates that awnings
are generally replaced every few years, and-signs~ainted on awnings would,
therefore, be renewed on a regular basis. Awning reylacement is initiated
by the individual entrepreneur. However; if an·awning·is in bad condition
and projects over the public way, the city can require that it be repaired,
replaced cr removed. ·
Window Signs
Council's direction to staff to prepare an ordinance which would regulste
signs inside windows included the suggestion that the City of Lafayette's
code section on window signs might be incorporated to toto.
Lafayette's regulations are: (1) no permit is required for temporary signs,
but each sign must have the date of installation written on its face; (2)
no more than 20 percent of the total wind~N space on a wall may be covered;
and (3) each teroporat:y window sign shall be -removed when the sale or promo
tion ends or within 30 days following installation, whichever is sooner.
Xn other words, Lafayette regulates the percentage of window area which can
be covered, as well as the duration of time window signs can remain.
We have ta.:.ked with Mr. David Granados, the staff pet'son assigned to
Lafayette's Sign Committee. In Mr. Granados' opinion, the temporary si~
regulations are the only unworkable portion of the Lafayette sign ordinance.
Mr. Granados attributes the problem to lack of staff time that <!an be
devoted to enforcement
Wa have ~lso surveyed sever<tl Peninsula communities to determine their policies
on regulating window signs. Five of th2 seven, including Cupertino,
Los Altos, Mettio Park, Santa Cl~~a and s~nnyvale do regulate SH~h signs.
Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale place a maxi!llum of 25 perc.=nt on the
ar~a of a wi~odow that can be covered. Los Altos allows 15 percent of the
window area to be used, except for grocery stores which are permitted to
use 25 percent. Menlo Park deducts window signs area from the tc,tal allow
able wall si.gt1 area. None of these cities, however, places time limits
on the signs. Staff members from the five coL1munities with window sign
regulations feel that a code section on window signs is a useful tool to
control certain ob~~ous offender.s. However, enforcement is carried out
on a complaint basis only. If a store apparently exceeds the allowable
wi.ndow area, a cou.:t:esy notice is first sent.
Two communities contarited, Mountain View and San Jose, feel that signs
inside of windows are tee dlfficult to regulate and have no cocle provisions
attempting to de so.
The attached draft ordinance adds subsection (i) to Section 16.20.190 to
define a window sign and to provide that no more thsn 20 percent of tpe
window area be covered. ~indow signs are not limited to temporary paper
signs but include permanent signs affixed to the interior face of the·
window, as well as signs placed up to three feet behiud a window. However, no
time restrictions are imposed on windo~ signs.
CMR:604:4 -2-
J • •• •
• summary
Awbing signs can easily be incorporated into Chapter 16.20 and such signs
will provide an altP.rnative, and in many cases the most tasteful, method
of signing a shop.
Regulating signs inside windows could pose a problem td th enforcement~
particularly if staff is obligated to regularly check the dates of all
such signs. Lafayette, the one community surveyed which sets time limits,
. finds that particular code section unworkable. On the other hand, a regulation
which merely restricts the area of the \·dndow to be .covered, without time
limits, could provide a useful tool to control certain business signs inside
windows. Five local communities, which restrict window area only, find such
a provision beneficial.
Respectfully submitted,
· ·--~ ~-v ce.~k?-1"11-\_ ·~TCHISON . ·
Asso~ia~e Planner
~A}. I H. :KNOX
Director of Planning
! .
Aetachments: Draft Ordinance
£nvironmental Impact Assessment
CMR.:604:4
. -_.-'.
~· ·. -:.
" I
-·:.
.....
· .. ·.-
. ; :. -. ~ .
. . ·· . . · ·-.\ ..
..... • • .
. . -..
..
. .
· .
.-.·
· .
. '
·-.:·
ENVIR.ONHEN.T.AL DOCUMENTS •
I:
..
~ALO.O
...
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
•• EIA-2
74
:Project Descriptio~_S_i~g_n_O~rd __ in_a_n_c_e __ R_e_v_i_s_~i_o_n ____________________________________________ __
·.Location ---------------------Palo Alto ...
Sponsoring Pen-on or Aeency City of Palo Alto
--------------------------------------------~----~--------~-
. {\ddres's and Telephone of Applicant 250 Hamilton A-.renue
--~-----------------------------~--------------------~
Application for n/a
------~----------~------(e.g., buildlng permit, use perm:lt:, zoning change, subdivision map, etc •. )
·zoning at Project Location_ul,.ya ____ _
-~2~. 90 Fee Pui'~ · .~n~/~a~------------~Receipt No·----------~------------
Based upon the information on the environmental worksheets, the undersigned member of
the Planning Department has made an Environmental Assessment r.f tl_<e Project and has
concluded:
·./:J;;l. N~ative· Declaration: 'The project has no significant environmental impact.
No env:ironmentcl impact report is required. The reasons for a_Negative
:>eclarad.on are attached. ------------------~----------------------~---------------------------
-· -"-·.·
. .
No governmental a.::tion will be taken on· this pz:..>ject-~:)·: three-days .fol~~wing thi.s date.
; I I Notice of Determination: The.project may have a significant .environmental impact.
An cnv-~.ronm.ental impact report will be prepared by the Plann.:tng Department .
. -Pla~ning D~~ar·t~ent O~f~cial. . ~k~'. C:tr.~\o::~;;;;:..~~=-+--·---...;._
Pln~ning ~!~ector~ ~~ tj~{~~ -. ·
. Date.-:----· _·_. _. _·.....~,._ ftyf:..._::f~~~-~..yfr....___._· __ ----------
10-1-74:500
:-Reviewed During
Processing By:
.•
·Agency or
·l.iepartment
•.
..
Date
·.
.··
74-EIA-J I :t
. ·,
. ~ .... · .....
.
" ..... ·.-~~-· ,_, •• •
November 5, 1974
Environmental Impact A3se~sment for Sign Ordinance Revision
In February 1974, the Council revised the municipal code with xespect to
· regulation of signs. Main features of the revision included reduction of the
allowable size of signs and an amortization period for non-conforming signs.
An environmental assessment was made of the sign ordinance revision on February
28, 1974 resulting in a Negative Declaration (74-EIA-20).
The present proposal furth~r revises the municipal code to permit signs on
awnings and to limit to twenty percent the amount of a display window that
signs might cover.
As in the previous revision, the impact of these proposed revisions on the
bio-physical environmeut would be negligible. Awning signs w~uld be treated
as are other signs, and architectural review would be required before issuance
of permits. This proviston essentially vould eliminate inconsiste-ncies in the
treatment of these two types of building projections.
Limitation of the amount of windo~s that may be covered by signs would have an
aesthetic impr.=t which would be favoraole to the City as a whole. Scme indi
vidual businesses, such as grocery stores, may feel unduly restricted in their
advertising by this provision. A mitigating circumstance would be that all
aimilar businesses in the City would be under the same restrictions and the
competition, therefore, would be equalized.
No adverse environmental effect is anticipated from \.his ordinance revision,
and a Negative Declaration ia recommended.
ESC/gly
~~'~
ELIZABETH S. CROWDER
Associate Planner