Loading...
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