SR-8-A (53)
~.A
CA:RMM:r
City Council Meeting 3-9-82
MAR 9 1982
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Councll
FROM: Clty Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordlnance AdoptIng sign Code
This staff report transmlts an ordlnance for introduc-
tion adopting the Santa Monlca 51gn Code. A more detailed
staff report will be distrlbuted prIor to the City Council
meet~ng on March 9, 1982.
The process of drafting the s1gn ordInance has been
complicated. Questions of policy are 1nextricably tied to
questions of law.
Thoughtful comments have been received from a variety
of concerns, lnclud1ng the ArchItectural Review Board and the
Chamber of Commerce. In addItlon, the City Manager has
revlewed the ordinance and made a number of comments. At the
present time, both the City Attorney and the City Manager
believe that additIonal work 1S required on the proposed s1gn
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that following the pub-
lie hearlng, the ordinance be referred back to staff for
g'..n
additional refinement.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
MAR 9 19~~'2
"
CM:JHA:PG
'Counc~l Meeting: May 10, 1983
Santa Mon~ca, Ca1iforn1a b - r
MAY 1 0 \983
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Oppose SB-142, Preemption of
C~ty Control of S~gns
Introduction
Th1S report recommends the City Council go on record in
opposition to Senate B11l 142 (Ellis -R, San Diego).
Background
Senate B1Il 142 would state that the only way a city could cause
the removal of signs and other advertizing devices for bus1nesses
is to acquire the sign by paying cash compensatlon utilizing
eminent domain authority. The b1l1 thus eliminates all zonlng
authority to amortize and remove non-conforming slgns which were
constructed before current requirements took effect.
Attached is a League of California Cities descr1ption of the
effects of SB-142 should 1t become law.
Reconuuendation
It is recommended that the City Council oppose the passage of
SB-142 and direct the C1ty Lobbyist to take approprlate steps to
defeat the bill 1n the State Legislature.
Prepared by: Peg Gardels
Assistant to the City Manager
6-7
MAY 1 0 198J
.'
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ON
SB 142 (ELLIS)
PREEMPTION OF CITY CONTROL OF SIGNS
What the Bill Does
58 142 would state that the only way a city could cause removal of signs and other
advertising devices for businesses is to acquire the sign by paying cash compensation
utlllzmg eminent domain authority. The bill thus eliminates all zoning authority to
amortize and remove non-conforming signs which were constructed before current
requIrements took effect.
Existln9 Law And City Practice
Under existing law hundreds of California cities have enacted ordinances establishing
limitations on size, type, location, and design of signs. The main purpose of these
ordinances is to improve the appearance of commercial areas. Attractive appearance
is considered essential in attracting new businesses and consumers to a business area.
It is also essential to (Il overall positive image of the city. All new businesses must
meet these requirements.
Existing businesses are allowed a period of time to bring their signs into conformity
with the new law. The time period is usually several years and must be long enough to
allow the sign owner to fully amortize costs and investments. This method of
compensating the owners of old signs which do not meet current law and who thus
enjoy temporarily on lXlfoir advantage over new businesses, which are only allowed a
much smaller sign, is a compromise which protects the property rights and investments
of the si gn owner and insures the ability to eventually enforce the requirements of the
new ordinance equi tgbly amongst all businesses. This method of compensating sign
owners has been upheld os a valid zoning action by stote and federal courts throughout
the nation. It IS an accepted practice which has already resulted in the upgrading and
cleanup of numerous areas which previously were dommated by old, garish advertising
signs.
The large older signs con effectively block the signs of new businesses because the
signs of the new businesses do not protrude from the building or have the visual impact
that the older signs have.
What Will Be the Major Effects on Cities If 58 1~2 is Enacted?
Basically, 5B 142 gives permanent legal protection to ugliness. While many businesses
claim that their indiVidual signs are attractive and not an eyesore to the public, it is
only when the cumulative effect of numerous signs becomes a real eyesore to the
public that cities enact ordinances requirmg the removal of existing signs and the
erectIon of smaller, more attractive signs. The purpose almost universally is to
eliminate the ugliness and blight that affect an area and make it unattractive.
Many cities have successfully cleaned up commercial areas by eliminating signs and
find that new economic activity IS substantially stimulated by implementation of these
ordinances. They also find that the public overwhelmingly supports these ordinances
and supports the elimination af the unsightly signs that contribute to an unfavorable
image for the particular city.
What is the Impact of 56 142 on Redevelopment?
Redevelopment areas ore, of course, directly affected by S6 142. These designated
areas ore those most in need of commercial revitalization. Improving the
attractiveness of these areas is one of the critical methods used by cities to implement
redevelopment plans. 56 142 thus removes one of the important tools that cities
utilize in carrying out redevelopment activities.
What is the Impact of 58 142 on Small Businesses?
Initially some businesses are hurt and some are helped by city sign ordinances. In the
long run, however, almost 011 businesses will benefit by the enactment of strict sign
controls. The improved attractiveness of on area means more business for everyone.
F or businesses hoping to locate in an area, having strict sign controls helps in two
ways: (I) It means the area will be more attractive and thus more likely to be a good
place to do business, and (2) It means the business is spared the expense of having to
erect a large advertising structure in order to be seen by the public. Thus for new
businesses city sign ordinances reduce the cost of doing business and increase the likely
profits.
F or eXisting businesses that have large signs that do not conform to current
requirements, the legislation eliminates a cost. The cost under existing sign
ordinances is the cost of removing an existing sign and erecting Q smaller conforming
sign. Naturally, these businesses would object to the city sign ordinances because it
Involves 0 direct out-of-pocket cost. However, in many areas throughout the state
ex.perience has snown that even these businesses, when forced to comply with the sign
ordinonce, in the long run fInd themselves better off. Many existing businesses support
the new sign ordinances because they are interested in upgrading their area. In many
cases the objection by businesses to new city sign ordinances is a penny-wise and
pound-foolish objection.
In most cases the costs are minimal. Local sign -ordinances must provide an
amortization period to allow a sign owner to spread the cost of complying with the new
ordinance over several years. In addition, most local ordinances provide an appeal
mechanism where, if a business can demonstrate true hardship from the local
ordmance, it can be allowed an additional time period to bring the sign into
compliance.
Will 58 142 Preempt City Control of Si~ns?
Requiring cash compensation means total state preemption. Cities do not nave the
money to buy outdoor advertising signs that they then intend to get rid of.
2/23/83
f
, .
The Sacramento Bee
Locally o....ned and operated for 126 years
JAMES McCLATCHY..&for. 1857-1883
C K Ml;CLAlCHY,.d<\or,~, 1883-1914
WALTER P JONES.IH#or, 1936-1974
UE....NOfI.Mc(:lATCHY, ~ 1936-1n8
Vol. 153-No. 4l,llt
Monday, February 28, 1983
i'tJ&IrsIHH/ --a.r,. -' s....day
8y McCLATCHY NEWSP....PERS
JAMES McCLATCHY, r:IIomnGrI (If",. boord
c: K McCLATCHY ecii1or."...."
FR....NK .v..:CUllOCH ~x<Kl/l1t1ol "*""
MICHAEL G KIDDER, ~.d<tor
PETER SCHRAG, <<ittonaI ~ Mttor
ROBUT SYERIV, ~~
, Editorials
Protecting Ugliness
Califorma citIes and countIes have been
empowered for some years to requIre.
busmess establIshments to remove on-premise
advertlsmg sIgns that no longer conform to
local sign ordmances. The need for that au-
thonty, endorsed by state and federal courts,
3ecame eVident 10 the wake of redevelopment
programs deSigned to upgrade decaymg bUSI-
ness neighborhoods The presence of older,
gansh, outslzed signs 10 crumblmg areas In-
'llbned new busmess ventures. The enactment
of ordlOances regulatmg the Size, height,
;Jlacement and aesthetIc character of new
'lgns made It pOSSible to reqUire the removal
olf older, non-conformmg ones
In the many CalI forma cIties and countIes
~avmg such ordmances, provIsIOns are made
;or the phase-out of the signs over a penod of
-everal years ID order to amortize the owner's
costs, or for agreement between local govern-
ment and owner on an alternatIve method of
,lchlevmg compliance. Most have appeal pro-
VISions for hardship cases
Notwlthstandmg some understandable
_ontroversy and grumblIng from affected
:JJSlDeSSes, 10 most places that procedure has
',I.'orked well to improve and mamtalD the
'ppearance of buslDess neighborhoods and a
. lmmumty's Image Busmess generally h:.ls
I,ro~pered In sectl,?ns where the upgradmg of
signs has made those locatIOns deslTable m.
vestment sltes, attractIve to customers
A bill now before the Legislature wouk
effectively dIsmantle such sign regulatIOn b~
local government. SB 142 by SeD Jim Ellis at
San Diego was sparked by the complamts of a
group of busmess owners In the small San
Diego County city of poway and has the sup-
port of stateWide electncal sign compames. It
would compel cities and counties to use em\-
nent-domaln condemnatIon procedures to
remove offendmg sIgns. That means they
would have to pay owners the current mar",>t
value of the sIgns removed The legal ar.d
other costs entaIled by that course would be
prohibitIve for vlrtuaily all commumtles, espe-
CIally In these straItened hmes It further
would put CalIforma's overburdened courts to
the task of decidmg Issues now handled more
Simply and dIrectly by negotiatIon and com-
promise between bus messes and local govern.
ment. POInting out the cost barrIer of SB 14l to
effective sign regulation, the League of Call-
forma ClUes accurately descnbeS It as "per-
manent legal protectIon to uglmess."
The bill IS scheduled to come up today be-
fore the Senate Committee on Buslrp<;s
and ProfeSSions That panel should gIve thiS
blatantly speclaHnteresr legislation short
shnft