TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Hayden Beckman, Planning Manager
FROM: Arlen Beck, Senior Planner
1. Subject
title
Public Hearing to consider a comprehensive amendment to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code addressing sign definitions, review authority, temporary uses, special events, and replacement of Chapter 17.36, Sign Regulations, in its entirety.
body
2. Summary
The proposed sign code update aligns the City’s regulations with court rulings, applicable state and federal law and provides a clear, legally supportable basis for enforcement of sign code violations. It strengthens the City’s ability to reduce the proliferation of unlawful banners and other signs that contribute to visual clutter, obstruct visibility, or detract from the appearance of neighborhoods and business corridors.
The update also establishes a more comprehensive system for reviewing signs, with expanded definitions, illustrated standards, nine zoning-based sign districts, and identified permit and review procedures. It addresses contemporary sign technology and a broader range of sign designs while retaining protections for Old Towne.
3. Recommended Action
recommendation
1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-26 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to add sign review authority to reviewing bodies, add sign criteria and clarifying administrative language for temporary use permits and special events, and replace Chapter 17.36, Sign Regulations, in its entirety.
3. Recommend that the City Council find the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378.
end
4. Project background
The City’s sign regulations were last comprehensively revised in 1995 through Ordinance No. 12-95, with subsequent amendments addressing particular issues. Since that time, sign technology, business practices, and the legal standards governing sign regulation have evolved. Provisions organized around the subject or purpose of a sign can raise constitutional concerns and complicate consistent enforcement. The existing chapter also does not provide the same breadth of definitions, illustrations, and coordinated review procedures contemplated by the proposed update.
The proposed comprehensive update identifies legal consistency as a central objective, together with clearer graphics, updated administrative procedures, standards for permanent and temporary signs, and consideration of electronic and iconic signs. These objectives remain directly relevant to the City’s ability to administer a practical sign code that supports business visibility and protects community character.
5. project description
The proposed ordinance is a City-initiated, citywide amendment to the Zoning Code. It replaces Chapter 17.36 and makes related amendments to Chapter 17.04, Definitions; Section 17.08.020, Reviewing Bodies; Section 17.10.035, Temporary Use Permits; and Sections 17.46.050 and 17.46.080 governing special events. The principal components are:
• Legal and administrative provisions: Content-neutral application, substitution of noncommercial messages, interpretation procedures, permit requirements, and identification of reviewing authorities.
• Sign districts and sign types: Nine proposed sign districts corresponding to the character of the underlying zoning, accompanied by tables identifying allowed signs and required approvals.
• Comprehensive development standards: Illustrated methods for measuring sign area and height, standards for building-mounted and freestanding signs, and requirements for illumination, installation, maintenance, and visibility.
• Temporary signs and events: Standards for wall banners, window signs, yard signs, subdivision signs, and advertising devices associated with approved temporary uses and special events.
• Coordinated design and preservation: Sign programs, design incentives, sign design guidelines, historic district provisions, and a process for iconic sign designation.
• Compliance and enforcement: Provisions addressing unauthorized signs, lawful existing signs, correction of violations, removal, and available enforcement remedies.
The ordinance is intended to provide an effective sign code that protects lawful expression while allowing the City to address unauthorized, excessive, poorly maintained, and improperly located signage. Equally important is the establishment of code content that supports the pursuit of a cleaner, safer, and more attractive community, provides predictable requirements for business and property owners, as well as clear direction for staff and the City’s reviewing bodies.
6. project analysis
Legal Consistency
Legal consistency is the central reason for the update. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) 576 U.S. 155, the United States Supreme Court held that the challenged sign regulations drew impermissible distinctions based on a sign’s subject matter. The proposed ordinance responds by directing that standards be applied in a content-neutral manner, focusing on physical characteristics and impacts such as size, height, location, illumination, spacing, and duration. It also expressly allows substitution of noncommercial messages on otherwise compliant signs without requiring additional approval for the message change.
City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC (2022) further clarified that an on-premises/off-premises distinction is not automatically content based merely because the sign must be read to determine its relationship to a location. Such regulations remain subject to constitutional review. Together, these decisions support careful drafting of standards that address legitimate safety and aesthetic concerns without favoring or disfavoring a viewpoint.
State law is also relevant to implementation, including the Outdoor Advertising Act and protections governing certain lawfully established advertising displays. Accordingly, the update is intended to strengthen enforceability through clear, lawful standards and appropriate procedures. Enforcement must account for applicable state law, required notice, and the status of an existing sign. Adoption provides the regulatory framework for consistent action; continued administration and enforcement will produce the visible improvements sought by the City.
Updated Standards
A principal community benefit is a more effective basis for addressing the accumulation of unauthorized banners, feather banners, improperly placed yard signs, and deteriorated sign materials. These conditions can obscure storefronts, compete with permitted business identification, interfere with sight lines, and contribute to a neglected appearance. The proposed ordinance connects these concerns to specific standards that staff can explain, document, and apply consistently.
For example, Table 17.36.060.B allows a maximum of one temporary wall banner per business in eligible nonresidential sign districts, with a maximum area of 32 square feet. Display is limited to four periods per calendar year, each lasting no more than 30 consecutive days, with at least 30 days between display periods. A sign permit is required, and wall banners may not be used as permanent signs. These provisions retain opportunities for temporary business communication while establishing a clear end to each approved display period.
The ordinance also generally prohibits bandit signs, A-frame signs, feather banners, and specified attention-attracting devices, subject to expressly authorized exceptions. It restricts signs in the public right-of-way, at intersections and driveways where visibility is needed, and on utility poles and other unauthorized supports. Separate maintenance provisions address faded, peeling, cracked, broken, or otherwise damaged sign components and unused sign structures. This combination supports correction of both unlawful placement and physical deterioration.
Temporary-sign applications would be reviewed by Code Enforcement staff designated by the Community Development Director. The ordinance provides for inspections, correction notices, available legal remedies, and removal where authorized. Its enforcement provisions also address storage and notice for removed signs and preserve the City’s administrative, civil, and criminal remedies. Consistent application can improve the appearance of commercial corridors while avoiding an advantage for businesses that disregard the rules.
Updated Review Processes
The update organizes review around sign district, sign type, and the physical characteristics of a proposal. Applicants and staff would first identify whether the sign type is allowed, then determine the applicable permit and reviewing body, and evaluate the proposal against the relevant dimensional, lighting, design, and safety standards. Tables 17.36.020.A through 17.36.020.C are intended to provide a common reference for these decisions.
The review framework distinguishes structural and electrical review by the Building Official from zoning review and discretionary design decisions. It assigns administrative functions to the Community Development Director and designated staff while identifying matters for the Design Review Committee (DRC) or Planning Commission. The result is a more complete assessment of how a sign fits its building and surroundings, including its scale, placement, lighting, relationship to other signs, and effects on access and visibility.
The nine sign districts recognize that a residential neighborhood, a major commercial corridor, a mixed-use development, and Old Towne have different signage needs. Standards are organized for agricultural, extractive, and open space uses; single-family and duplex neighborhoods; multifamily and mobile home developments; commercial areas; office professional areas; mixed-use areas; industrial areas; public institutions; and the historic overlay. This organization makes it easier to identify the rules that apply to a particular property.
Regulations for Modern Sign Types
The proposed chapter expands the range of sign forms and technologies expressly addressed by the code. Its definitions and illustrated standards cover blade and projecting signs, awning and canopy signs, suspended and marquee signs, painted wall and window signs, monument and landscape wall signs, freestanding projecting signs, and directory and directional signs. It also addresses contemporary construction and lighting methods, including individual letters, pan channel letters, halo illumination, and single- or two-color LED signs. Identifying these formats reduces uncertainty about how a proposed sign should be classified and reviewed.
Electronic message signs receive specific location, size, and operating standards. The draft limits eligibility to qualifying sites of at least two acres in designated districts or institutional-use settings and confines the display to wall or monument signs. Messages must remain static for at least four hours; flashing, blinking, motion, and video are prohibited. Automatic controls would limit nighttime luminance to 100 nits, supported by manufacturer certification. These controls address the potential effects of the technology on nearby properties and the traveling public.
The ordinance separately carries forward the City’s billboard framework, including its prohibition on new billboards except through the authorized relocation process and its distinct requirements for electronic billboards in freeway corridors. Ordinary on-site electronic message signs and electronic billboards remain separate regulatory categories. Expanded definitions do not make every sign type available on every property; the district tables and applicable standards determine eligibility.
Sign Programs
Sign programs allow signage to be considered across a development rather than only as individual applications. The proposed standards address new and substantially improved multi-tenant properties, eligible larger properties, and voluntary sign program applications. A program identifies sign locations, sizes, materials, illumination, and other common design elements so tenants can maintain individual business identities within an organized design for the property.
The draft also provides flexibility through eligible sign programs, established adjustment procedures, and design performance standards. These provisions encourage durable materials, dimensional lettering, integration with architecture and landscaping, and consolidation of freestanding signs. The accompanying Sign Design Guidelines illustrate these principles and encourage creativity, legibility, and compatibility. For business owners, these provisions provide a path toward effective permanent signage and a clearer understanding of design expectations before fabrication and installation.
Standards for Signage in Old Towne Orange Historic District
The Historic Overlay Sign District retains a distinct review framework tied to the Historic Preservation Design Standards for Old Towne. Those preservation standards take precedence where requirements conflict. The ordinance therefore allows modernization of the citywide code while continuing to evaluate signs in Old Towne according to the scale, architecture, and historic materials that distinguish the area.
The proposed iconic sign process recognizes signs with community, cultural, aesthetic, or historic significance. It includes designation criteria, owner consent, review by the City’s designated bodies, and a maintenance program addressing preservation and appropriate modifications. This provides a means to recognize signs that contribute positively to Orange’s identity, including significant signs outside Old Towne.
7. AUTHORIZING GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code Section 17.08.020 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and make advisory recommendations to the City Council on Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
8. Public notice
On September 24, 2026, a notice was published in the Orange City News newspaper for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 19, 2026.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find that the proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to (1) Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (common sense exemption) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it would have a significant effect on the environment; and (2) Section 15378 because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a "project." For these reasons, no further CEQA documentation is required.
10. advisory board action
Design Review Committee:
The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance on March 4, 2026, as an informational item. The item was received and filed, and no formal recommendation for approval was made. Members supported improving the City’s ability to address sign clutter while emphasizing the importance of community character, business needs, high-quality design, and preservation of significant signs.
The Committee’s comments called for clearer duration limits and enforcement provisions for temporary signs; continued DRC involvement in the review of iconic signs; consideration of a proactive inventory of significant signs; and clarification of definitions and review standards.
11. ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 20-26 with Draft City Council Ordinance XX-26 - Sign Code Update Ordinance (Clean)
• Attachment 2 Draft City Council Ordinance XX-26 - Sign Code Update Ordinance (Redlined)