CITY OF SIGNAL HILL 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755-3799 AGENDA ITEM TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SCOTT CHARNEY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR TATTOO AND/OR BODY PIERCING STUDIOS Summary: The City Council will consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit tattoo and/or body piercing studios in certain zoning districts separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from a sensitive land uses such as a church, school, park, community center or residential zones. Additionally, tattoo and/or body piercing establishments must not be situated less than 1,000 feet from a similar establishment. The zoning districts that may accommodate the use include the CG, Commercial General, CI, Commercial Industrial, CO, Commercial Office, LI, Light Industrial, GI, General Industrial, and Area 3 of the SP-10, Pacific Coast Highway Specific Plan. The use is currently listed as tattoo parlor in the zoning code and is prohibited in all zoning districts. The City must accommodate the tattoo and body piercing use due to a federal court ruling that declared it protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Recommendations: 1) Waive further reading and adopt the Resolution, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 07/29/11(1), RELATIVE TO ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 11-04, A REQUEST TO AMEND SIGNAL HILL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.20, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, TO INCLUDE TATTOO AND/OR BODY PIERCING STUDIO AS A
Page 2 PERMITTED USE IN THE CG, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, CO, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CTC, COMMERCIAL TOWN CENTER, CI, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, LI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, GI, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, AND SP-10, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SPECIFIC PLAN, ZONING DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO A SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 500 FEET FROM SENSITIVE LAND USES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL ZONES, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, PARKS, LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITY CENTERS AND A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 1,000 FEET FROM A SIMILAR TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENT AND TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 11.36 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED BODY ART ESTABLISHMENTS, AND PORTIONS OF PART 1, CHAPTER 36, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REGULATIONS, ENTITLED BODY ART REGULATIONS 2) Waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance, entitled: Fiscal Impact: None anticipated. Background: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 11-04, A REQUEST TO AMEND SIGNAL HILL MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 20.20, ENTITLED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, TO INCLUDE TATTOO AND/OR BODY PIERCING STUDIO AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CG, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, CO, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CTC, COMMERCIAL TOWN CENTER, CI, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, LI, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, GI, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, AND SP-10, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SPECIFIC PLAN, ZONING DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO A SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 500 FEET FROM SENSITIVE LAND USES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL ZONES, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, PARKS, LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITY CENTERS AND A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 1,000 FEET FROM A SIMILAR TATTOO AND/OR BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENT, AND TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 11.36 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED BODY ART ESTABLISHMENTS, AND PORTIONS OF PART 1, CHAPTER 36, OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REGULATIONS, ENTITLED BODY ART REGULATIONS
Page 3 Tattoo Culture A generation ago tattoos were associated with bikers, sailors and prisoners but today tattoos are more mainstream and are worn by people of all ages and gender including many professionals as well as celebrities, rock stars and athletes. Tattoos serve to memorialize a loved one, signify membership in a group, express thoughts and feelings and showcase art. Like tattoos, body piercing has also become popular as personal expressions of style, individuality and taste. Health Department Regulations As social acceptance of tattoos and body piercing and the demand for them has grown, the seedy image of the tattoo parlor has been replaced with that of the stylish studio. The growth in these tattoo and body piercing studios and their artists has raised health concerns. Because applying ink to the body involves breaking the skin and injecting pigment and piercing involves creating openings in the body to insert jewelry or other decoration, risk of infection and disease transmission is high without appropriate health regulations and standards, which in California have been established by the state and counties. In the County of Los Angeles, regulations include: Restriction on service to minors under the age of 18 Registration by practitioners Public health facility permit for establishments Public health operator permit for practitioners Written exposure control plan Reporting requirements for infections, complications or diseases resulting from body art activity Records maintenance Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach At the local level, cities in California set their own laws to regulate tattoo and body piercing studios with many like Signal Hill outright prohibiting the use. The City of Hermosa Beach had a similar ban then was sued by a tattoo artist looking to open a business in that city. The case reached the Ninth District US Court of Appeals and in September 2010 in the case Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, the court struck down Hermosa Beach s ban on tattoo studios (Attachment A). In that case, Judge Jay Bybee held that the tattoo itself, the process of tattooing and the business of tattooing are forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment. This decision made it illegal for any jurisdiction in California to prohibit tattoo studios and as a result Hermosa Beach amended its zoning ordinance to allow the use.
Page 4 Shortly after the Anderson decision, staff started receiving inquiries about tattoo studios in Signal Hill. Due to the volume of inquiries, staff consulted with the City Attorney for guidance regarding the Ninth District ruling. As in the case of adult businesses or any protected class use, the City Attorney advised staff that the City s zoning ordinance would need to accommodate tattoo studios as well as body piercing studios which it considers in the same protected class, though the City could decide where and how studios could be located and operated. To help develop its own regulations concerning this use, staff researched a number of local cities ordinances and interviewed their planners. A few cities such as Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach and Lakewood already permit tattoo and body piercing studios in limited zones with conditional use permits. Many other cities still have not updated their codes to permit the use or are in the process of doing so. As a result of the Anderson case, Hermosa Beach has the most recently updated codes that regulate tattoo and body piercing studios. Its code requires the following (Attachment B): Separation requirements from other similar establishments Obtain and maintain permits from Los Angeles County Public Health No operation between 10 pm and 10 am No live animals except for service animals (seeing eye dogs) No expansion once established or expansion to additional locations No temporary or mobile establishments or events Staff suspected that like for Hermosa Beach, the use might prove controversial in Signal Hill. Staff ensured that the public was given the opportunity to participate and comment on the issue by scheduling a workshop prior to noticing any public hearing. June 14 Workshop The first workshop was well-attended with 19 people in the audience. Staff presented an overview of the history and culture of tattooing and described the practice and governing County health regulations. It then outlined three options for the Commission to consider in regulating studios as follows: 1) Option 1- Permit use in all commercial zones with no standards. 2) Option 2- Permit use in limited commercial zones with strict performance and separation standards of 500 from sensitive land uses and 1,000 from like establishments. 3) Option 3-Permit use with a conditional use permit. During public testimony, four tattoo artists spoke in favor of allowing studios in more visible commercial zones due to visibility and safety concerns. They were countered by two residents, one who favored concentrating the use as far as possible from residential
Page 5 zones in less visible areas of the city and another who opposed the use near residential zones due to perceived secondary effects. The Commission was mainly concerned with maintaining appropriate separation distances between the use and sensitive land uses and preventing concentration of studios. It felt that Option 2 was more appropriate but wanted additional information prior to finalizing performance and distance separation requirements. July 12 Workshop There were 11 in the audience at the second workshop. Staff provided the Commission with additional information on definitions, Los Angeles County health regulations, Signal Hill sign standards, and site plan and design review standards. It presented three distance separation maps (250, 500, and 1,000 ) and analyzed the pros and cons of each. Staff also discussed modifying a few of the performance standards and included two suggested by one of the tattoo artists. Unlike the first workshop, nobody gave testimony. After reviewing the separation maps, the Commission did not see the need to limit studios to certain commercial zoning districts feeling that industrial zones were also appropriate as long as they met distance separation requirements. It directed staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment to permit the use with a 500 separation requirement from sensitive land uses and 1,000 from similar establishments. August 9 Public Hearing The August Commission hearing drew 30 people. At the beginning of the meeting, the Assistant City Attorney advised the Chair that he did not feel confident that the findings included in the resolutions prepared for the item were sufficient to support the proposed separation requirements for a protected class use and recommended that the item be continued. The Commission then opened the floor to public testimony and 15 people in attendance took the opportunity to speak. Twelve speakers spoke in favor of a 500 separation requirement and the importance of allowing tattoo and/or body piercing studios in retail areas with good visibility, pedestrian access, lighting and safety. Some of these supporters stated that certain parts of the city were unsafe for studios, especially ones catering mostly to female clientele. One resident expressed his preference for a 1,000 separation to protect existing homeowners, especially those located along Willow Street. Another resident, submitted surveys of resident opinions on tattoo shop restrictions that implied that a majority of residents had concerns regarding the use. The Commission was divided in opinions over the appropriate distance separation requirement but united in its objection to opinions expressed by a few studio supporters that some areas of the City are unsafe for business, and challenged these supporters to
Page 6 provide actual crime statistics for the areas in question. Staff was directed to research additional data and return with revised resolutions in September. September 13 Public Hearing The continued public hearing was attended by 19 people. Staff explained that it had included new findings in the resolution demonstrating that separation requirements were legally enforceable and presented revised separation maps of 500 and 1,000 that also accounted for known sensitive uses in neighboring Long Beach (Attachments C and D). Staff presented data such as a 1997 police study from the City of Santa Clara and a recent Venice Beach gang sting operation at an undercover tattoo shop that illustrate that tattoo and/or body piercing shops can have secondary effects (Attachments E and F). The City Attorney reviewed these findings and felt that they are adequate to legally support the proposed distance separation requirements. The following testimony was given at the hearing: 1) A tattoo artist presented a Power Point presentation and spoke in favor of a 500 separation requirement and asked that City of Long Beach residences not be included in the distance separation requirements. 2) A resident spoke in favor of a 500 separation requirement, a cap on the number of permitted studios in proportion to the city s population, more centralized locations for ease of police enforcement and stricter enforcement of hours of operation. 3) A resident asked that there be no studios permitted on the Willow Street and Pacific Coast Highway corridors and that the hours of operation be strictly enforced. 4) A resident, submitted additional responses to his Tattoo Parlor Information Poll that implied that a majority of respondents had concerns regarding the use. Staff compiled the information in the poll and sent thank you notices to each participant (Attachment G, survey summary-entire survey will be available at the hearing). 5) A resident spoke on public safety and enforcing hours of operation as being a primary concern. 6) A resident spoke on the need for stricter health standards such as those put in place by Huntington Beach and felt that County standards were too vague. 7) A Long Beach resident presented Signal Hill crime statistics and spoke in favor of a 500 separation requirement.
Page 7 8) An attorney representing a tattoo artist spoke in favor of a 500 separation requirement and objected to including City of Long Beach residents in distance separation requirements. After public testimony and Commission discussion, a motion was put on the floor recommending an ordinance with a 1,000 separation requirement between studios and sensitive land uses. This motion resulted in a 2-3 vote and failed. Subsequently, a new motion to approve the ordinance as written for a 500 separation was made and approved by a 3-2 vote. Analysis: Proposed zoning standards The proposed zoning ordinance amendment defines tattoo and/or body piercing studio and provides zoning districts where the use may be located. The studios are subject to eleven performance standards that place further restrictions on location with distance separation requirements, require compliance with County health regulations, and set operating and design standards. The amendment will simplify the review process for these businesses while protecting the interests of the Signal Hill community by dispersing the use throughout the city away from sensitive land uses. The Commission recommended the following for the Council s consideration: I. Add the following definition for tattoo and/or body piercing studio: Tattoo and/or body piercing studio means a permanent premise, business, location, facility, room, or any portion thereof, used or operated for the business of permanently marking or coloring the skin with tattoos through the use of ink or dyes inserted under the surface of the skin by pricking with a needle and/or used for the business of creating openings in the human body, other than in the ear lobes, for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other decorations. II. Permit the use in certain commercial and industrial zones (see chart in ordinance). III. Add the following performance standards: 1) Except as otherwise provided in this footnote OO, Parts 1, 2, 5, and 7 of Chapter 11.36 of the Los Angeles County Code and Articles 1 thru 6 of Part 1 of Chapter 36 of the Los Angeles County Code Environmental Health Regulations, and all appendices, tables, and indices thereto, as the same existed on September 13, 2011 (collectively hereinafter LA County Body Art Codes ), are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set out herein, and the provisions thereof
Page 8 shall govern tattoo and/or body piercing studios within the limits of the City of Signal Hill. One copy of the LA County Body Art Codes has been deposited in the office of the city clerk and shall be at all times maintained by the city clerk for use and examination by the public. Whenever the term body art establishment is used in the LA County Body Art Codes, it shall be deemed and construed to have the meaning ascribed to Tattoo and/or Body Piercing Studio in section 20.04.721 of the code. Violation or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this footnote OO.1. shall be punishable in accordance with section 1.16.010 of this code. In the event of any conflict between the LA County Body Art Codes and any provision of this code, the provision of this code shall govern. 2) Business operating hours for general public walk-in clientele shall be limited to the hours of 10 am to 10 pm. 3) No facility shall be located within 1,000 feet of another tattoo and/or body piercing studio in any jurisdiction. 4) No facility shall be located within 500 feet of a church, school, library, public park, day care center or community center and 500 feet from any area zoned for residential use as measured from the outermost boundary of the property in any jurisdiction to the entrance of the facility. This restriction is based at the time of issuance of a business license and such future sensitive uses that may be located within this 500-foot zone will not cause the relocation of the tattoo and/or body piercing studio. 5) The facility shall be designed to screen tattooing and/or piercing or similar services performed on a patron s specified anatomical parts as defined by SHMC 9.64.020 O., from persons outside the facility. Signage, advertising or images depicting specific anatomical parts shall not be placed in the windows or be visible to persons outside the facility. 6) Signage shall comply with standards in SHMC 20.58 unless located in a commercial center with its own established sign program. 7) Exterior design or modification to a building shall be subject to review under SHMC 20.52 Site Plan and Design Review. 8) Each artist or technician who performs tattoo or body piercing procedures either as an independent contractor or an employee, shall submit evidence of Bloodborne Pathogen Training certification, CPR/First Aid certification, and LA County Health Department registration on demand by any City official. 9) Artists who are independent contractors shall obtain a separate business license from the city. 10) Tattoo and/or body piercing services cannot be provided as accessory to other permitted uses such as a hair salon and cannot be operated as home occupations. 11) This section is not applicable to a mobile tattoo and/or body piercing business. Separation
Page 9 The most controversial issue highlighted in the two public workshops and Planning Commission hearing was that of the distance from sensitive land uses, especially residential zones. Staff initially prepared three maps of 250, 500 and 1,000, but only the latter two were seriously considered as acceptable by the Commission. With the 500 separation, a few more properties along the Willow Street corridor become available such as across from Sunnyside Cemetery, the center with Turner s Outdoorsman, the building with Signal Hill Florist and a few buildings on Redondo Avenue near PCH by Panini s Café. The Commission felt that the most important goal was to separate like uses and avoid a concentration of tattoo and/or body piercing studios. This is why properties in Long Beach are also included in the map study because it can be reasonably assumed that without such a requirement, a scenario is possible where two or more shops locate across the street from each other separated only by city boundaries. Proliferation Another issue which has been raised is limiting the total number of tattoo and/or body piercing studios that can locate in the city. Given the 1,000 separation requirement between like uses, the first studio to locate will determine the location of subsequent studios. This and market forces will ultimately determine the number of studios that locate in the city. While it might seem that a 500 separation would yield significantly more potential locations than a 1,000 separation distance, the limiting factor is not the distance from sensitive land uses but the distance from like uses which is 1,000 in both scenarios. Staff prepared two maps that show a hypothetical outcome if a studio were situated approximately every 1,000 from another at both the 500 and 1,000 separation distance (Attachments H and I). When only the most viable sites are considered (excluding vacant oilfield, fixed uses like the ARCO terminal or Office Depot distribution center, etc.), there are at least 12 potential sites using the 500 separation requirement and 7 sites using the 1,000 separation distance. Reasonable Accommodation of Use The City Attorney has reviewed the case of Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach and made it clear that Signal Hill s only obligation is to accommodate tattoo and/or body piercing use and impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. It is not mandated to provide a high-profile retail location, location that is vacant and available for lease, or even a location that is developed. Understanding this point is important as public testimony at the recent Planning Commission workshops and hearing has emphasized the importance of sites with good visibility, pedestrian foot traffic, lighting and safety. Although these may be criteria that are important to a specific operator they are not necessary to be able to perform tattoo and/or body piercing services.
Page 10 In the Commission s view, Signal Hill is a good place to do business and has many areas that could serve the needs of a tattoo and/or body piercing studio even if they are not located along the main commercial corridors of Willow Street or Cherry Avenue. One indication of this is the recent influx of so called non-traditional industrial uses that consist of sports and personal training facilities that have been permitted in many industrial buildings. Many of these businesses cater to professionals after hours, bringing more people to the industrial zones in the evening which enhances safety with an increase of eyes on the street. As more traditional manufacturing jobs are replaced through technology and outsourcing, the City s industrial zones are becoming more commercial in nature out of necessity. It is important to note that after the August Commission hearing, the City received an application for a studio from Tiffany Garcia for a location at 1827 Redondo Avenue (next to Panini s) in the SP-10, Pacific Coast Highway Specific Plan. This location is one of the areas identified in the 500 separation distance map but not on the 1,000 map as a potential opportunity area for a tattoo/and or body piercing studio. Staff accepted the application but noted that no action could be taken regarding the zoning verification until 30 days after the second reading of an ordinance adoption by the City Council. Approved: Kenneth C. Farfsing Prepared by: James Kao, Associate Planner