Discussion and possible action on any and all matters regarding Text Amendment Case No. 2016-0204 and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 350.  An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of San Luis, Arizona, amending the San Luis City Code, Chapter 152 Zoning Regulations, Section 152.259(B) and 152.260 relating to temporary signs and political signs; repealing any conflicting provisions; and providing for severability.  (John Starkey, Zoning Administrator)

A. Approval of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 350 by title only
B. Approval and adoption of Ordinance No. 350

This is a request by the City of San Luis for a text amendment to the San Luis City Code, Chapter 152 Zoning Regulations Sections 152.259 (B) and 152.260 relating to Temporary Signs and Political Signs.

The City of San Luis is requesting this text amendment in light of the Reed v. Town of Gilbert 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). In June 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling in the case titled Reed v. Town of Gilbert which caused a significant change in approach to sign regulations that had previously been used in San Luis and many other localities across the state and country. The case involved a Sign Ordinance in the Town of Gilbert, Arizona that regulated signs differently according to content-based sign types, such as directional signs, ideological signs, and political signs.  A church appealed the City’s regulations because they were limited to certain size signs that they used to direct parishioners to their church, yet signs with other messages were allowed to be much larger. They argued that if the visual clutter is the concern being addressed with sign regulations, then the message on the sign should not make a difference and all types of signs should be treated fairly.

The Supreme Court held that any regulation that distinguishes signs based on what they say is considered to be content based, and content based regulations are legally subject to strict scrutiny and are thus only allowed if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and other avenues of communication are available for the user of the sign. Aesthetical and safety justifications are not enough of a reason for a sign regulation to survive strict scrutiny. The ruling basically says “if you have to read the sign to know if it complies with zoning, the regulation is invalid.”

Because of this ruling, many aspects of the current Zoning Ordinance for signage have become unenforceable. While amendments are needed for all components of the signage regulations that relate to sign content or content-based sign categories, a pressing issue is that of signs in the public right-of-way. 

Because the City currently allows certain signs in the right-of-way, it effectively has to allow all signs in the right-of-way. The City can no longer limit signage installations in the right-of-way to only political campaign signs because it is content-based regulation. As a result, the City has been limited in its ability to enforce proliferation of other types of signs that have recently been placed in roadway medians and along the sides of streets.

The proposed text amendment would remove the language regarding political signs from the Zoning Ordinance and City Code, which currently recites the State Statute (A.R.S. §16-1019).  The new language would simply say that political signs are regulated by the State and not the City. It does not say the signs are legal; rather that removal is controlled by state law. This amendment would eliminate the content-based treatment on the right-of-way under our Zoning Ordinance. Basically, by changing the language of political signs, there would be no signs allowed in the public right-of-way. 

CITIZEN REVIEW MEETING:
The Citizen Review Meeting was held on May 3, 2016 at City Hall Multipurpose Room at 6 PM. The intent of this meeting was to allow the public to learn about the project, ask questions, and express comments. There were no members of the public present. 

ANALYSIS:
In the wake of Reed, some things are clear. Governments still have an array content-neutral regulations to apply to signs. But, content-based distinctions such as the ones in the Town of Gilbert's code must survive strict scrutiny to stand, because of mix of opinions from the Court, there are several open questions. We will not know the full scope and meaning of Reed v. Town of Gilbert until the federal courts begin to apply this decision to other sign litigations. 

In the mean while, this amendment will maximize the City's opportunity to defeat any challenges to the signs on right-of-way regulations as being content-based. This text amendment would make Section 16.1-E of the Zoning Ordinance enforceable again, therefore allowing the City to regulate the illegal signs currently placed on the right-of-way.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing for this item on their Regular Meeting of May 10, 2016. The Commission recommended approval of this request.  

CITY COUNCIL FIRST READING:
On May 25, 2016, a Public Hearing was held and the First Reading of Ordinance No. 350 was approved by the City Council. 

The purpose of this amendment is to enhance and maintain the aesthetical character, to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to increase the effectiveness of visual communication in the City. It is also intended to avoid visual clutter that may adversely impact traffic and pedestrian safety, or be adverse to property values, business opportunities and the City's appearance and to prevent and abate public nuisances.