|
 |
||
|
Changes to Mission Viejo Sign Code – Why and Why Not Over the past year or so the Mission Viejo Planning Commission and the city staff have been working on updating the Mission Viejo Sign Standard. As I reviewed the documents, meeting summaries and audio tapes of these meetings, I began to wonder why we should make some of the changes being proposed. The Sign Standard, Section 9.29 of the city code, regulates all types of signs in the city, from Realtor “For Sale” signs put up announcing an open house, to the billboards at the Freeway Center advertising Best Buy and the like, to the signs at the Mission Viejo Mall. As a master planned community, the Mission Viejo Company was quite particular about the appearance of what would become the City of Mission Viejo. When the city was incorporated, much of what was in place became part of the Sign Code. Although minor changes have been made since then, the changes proposed now are quite substantial. In order to understand the changes, one has to get a sense of what we have now. The complete text of section 9.29 is available on the city's web site at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12487&sid=5 There are eight purposes cited in the code. They are:
If one reads further in the code and compares it to neighboring cities, it should be clear that our rules are quite a bit more restrictive. However, I believe this has worked to our advantage in maintaining a beautiful city. So, why change anything, one might ask. It seems that changes are mainly being driven by three groups within the city. First, larger businesses and real estate firms who give significant campaign contributions to city council members are looking to have special provisions made for their companies and clients. One example of this is the monstrosity known as Kaleidescope. Tenants such as Howie's Game Shack have repeatedly ignored the city code by placing very large and ugly banners in excess of the permitted size in their windows. In addition, the outside of this building has been “decorated” by neon signs, skirting the code by partially obscuring the bare bulbs. All of this adds to the visual blight associated with this structure. As the center's financial plight becomes more severe and crime rises within the center, the landlords and Tenants become more and more desperate for business. Currently the owners are supported by Councilmembers Kelley and Ury, who have instructed the city staff not to pursue any violations. Many of the proposed sign code changes would benefit the Kaleidescope. Another large group of campaign contributors are the auto dealers on south Marguerite Parkway. The second group, made up of smaller businesses and centers throughout the city, have a different set of problems. Because they are smaller and not a “destination” like the auto dealers or the Mall, they need to let people who are driving by know what kinds of businesses are there. Individual businesses need to promote themselves and attract customers who may be shopping nearby. To do this, these smaller businesses have also violated the code, by using neon “OPEN” signs and by having larger than permitted window banners. The third group is the City itself. It appears that the staff, tired of complaints from businesses, residents and conflicting directions from various City Councils, have been trying to come up with a set of changes that would be easier to enforce and maintain. Overall, the level of compliance with the City's sign Code is only fair. This is partly because city staff have not been as effective as one might hope in stemming the tide of illegal signs. Some of this stems from interference by City Council members. And, once one store has a violation, then others feel they must also violate the code to stay competitive. One example of this lack of enforcement is in the proliferation of exposed neon “OPEN” signs. Neon signs of all types have been strictly prohibited in Mission Viejo since before we became a city. This is because they are basically ugly and distracting to drivers. Yet, we have allowed many businesses to hang these signs in their windows without citing them and forcing their removal, ostensibly because there is not enough staff to perform this function. There are some reasons to consider helping these businesses. They do generate sales tax revenue for the city. We don't want any business to fail from lack of business brought on by poor signage. Nonetheless, we have standards and should insist that businesses meet them before considering changes. If you reward a center that flouts city codes, like the Kaleidescope, then every business feels like it can do the same thing. Once this happens we lose control and Mission Viejo begins to look like Garden Grove. However, we do need a competitive business environment to attract and retain locally owned businesses. The other side of question is that of aesthetics and safety. Mission Viejo has always had a very high standard for landscaping, parks and other public spaces. High standards are also in effect for private property, to the extent in many areas of the city, you must get approval before painting or re-roofing your house. As new structures are built and old ones renovated, great care is taken to ensure the appearance is of the same quality and kind as surrounding structures. This avoids a mish-mash of styles and is more visually pleasing. It also maintains the value of the area by not permitting shoddy or unattractive building from blighting an area. To this point, the balance has been struck on the side of aesthetics. It is my view this is still the right balance and there is evidence of this in why people say they live in Mission Viejo. What some forces in the city are trying to do is to tip the balance towards commerce and convenience. This is no easy decision, for as Chuck Wilson, head of the Planning Department in Mission Viejo has said at many meetings, once you liberalize the sign code and allow something, it is very hard to take away those permits to build signs. Brad Morton, ex-Planning Commissioner, said at several meetings that he did not see any reason to change the sign code at this time. At the January 15, 2007 City Council meeting, the sign code was discussed and sent back to the Planning Commission for further work. These items were to be addressed by the Planning Commission:
Some of these, particularly number one and number 7, seem reasonable, especially in light of smaller centers that may not have any stores that are 10,000 sq. ft. or greater. Allowing a smaller store to have a sign on the center's marker would improve business. We should limit the number of stores advertised on a marker to prevent it from being hard to read and unattractive. Other proposals, like number 2, number 5 abd number 8, pander to the businesses, like Kaleidescope, that simple choose to ignore our city rules. Why are we rewarding them for breaking the law? Campaign contributions, perhaps? The same might be said of number 6, except that is the auto dealers want to purchase or lease land off site to announce their businesses, then our only concern should be that those offsite signs meet the same rules as onsite signs. We should also limit the number of offsite signs to one or two, to prevent signs from popping up all over the city. On February 26, the Planning Commission passed a revised Sign Code. This will go to the City Council at the March 19, 2007 scheduled meeting. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission has apparently decided to knuckle under to the scofflaws in the city and wants to permit exposed neon signs. They also have decided to reduce the standards for future signs by changing Section 9.29.140 from (in part) “...planned sign program which complies with or exceeds the minimum standard of this chapter....” to “... planned sign program which complies with the minimum standard of this chapter....”. They also decided that the rules for businesses and individuals should not apply to the city itself, by inserting section 9.29.165 that says (in part) “... no provision of this chapter shall be intended to apply to, direct, or restrict the city ...”.Why is the city pretending it is “better” than taxpayers? It is very important for you to call, email or write the city council about your concerns regarding this proposed change to our city's appearance. You can reach the city council as a group by emailing cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org |
||