SR-400-006 (5)
.
~
/ /
I ;
I I
j
L/ a:;roo6
4M-to
S~A
M~R 9 1982
I
CA:RMM:r
C1ty Council Meeting 3-9-82
Santa Monica, California
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Adopting Sign Code
This supplemental staff report provides additional
background on the sign ordinance that was transm1tted to the
C1ty Council on March 5, 1982.
The process of drafting the sign ordinance has been
comp11cated. When the City Council first considered the
recommendations of the Plann1ng Commiss10n on August 4, 1981,
it did so without the benefit of a deta1led staff report.
In addit1on, the proposed sign ordinance had not been review-
ed by the City Manager for 1ts impact on administration.
During the CIty Council's deliberations, the City
Attorney indicated that a number of areas needed to be
explored 1n order to return to the City Council a legally
adequate s1gn ordinance. The City Council d1rected the City
Attorney to prepare a legally adequate s1gn ordinance and
provided specific direction on an amortizat10n schedule.
In drafting the sign ordinance, the C1ty Attorney has
followed the specific direct10n of the City Council. In
other areas, the City Attorney has incorporated comments from
IJ&cl t-Q
6-A-
MAR 9 1982
the City Manager, the Architectural Review Board, the Build-
ing Offlcer, Planning Department staff, individual counc11-
members, and the Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee.
In responding to the various comments received during
the long process of rewr~ting the ord~nance, and in respond-
ing to a var~ety of legal concerns, a number of substantive
changes have been made in the ordinance. Therefore, it is
not recommended that the proposed sign ordinance be ~ntro-
duced at thlS time. Instead, it is recommended that the City
Counc~l defer action pending further staff analysis.
The legal authority of the City of Santa Monica to
adopt a sign ordinance is well-established. The California
Supreme Court has held that a local community may enact a
sign ordinance either to eliminate traffic hazards or to
improve the appearance of the surrounding community. See
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Die90, 26 Cal. 3d 848, 610
P.2d 407,164 Cal. Rptr. 510 (1980).
In adopting a sign ordinance, however, the City Councll
must be cognizant of available avenues of attack. First,
the particular sign ordlnance adopted must be reasonably
related to the public safety and welfare. If its goals are
the elimination of traffic hazards and improving the appear-
ance of the community, the ordinance may be attacked on the
ground that some or all of its provisions lack a reasonable
relationship to the achievement of those goals. Second,
although a valid exercise of the City's police power, the
ord1nance may nevertheless be attacked as v~olating
-2-
prov1sions of the United States or Ca11fornia Constitutions.
Thus, the United states Supreme Court, in Metromedia, Inc. v.
City of San Diego, 49 V.S.L.W. 4925 (1981), struck down pro-
visions of a San Diego s1gn ordinance because it v101ated the
first amendment even though the California Supreme Court had
prev10usly upheld the same ordinance as a valid exercise of
the police power.
The rema1nder of this supplemental staff report will
discuss some of the principal changes between the s1gn ordi-
nance now before the City Council and the sign ordinance last
before the City Counc11 1n August, 1981. (A copy of the for-
mer version of the ordinance is attached to this supplemental
staff report.)
1. Reogranization. The revised version of the sign
ord1nance reflects a reorganized structure. An attempt has
been made to simplify the language in order to make it more
understandable to the public. However, the basic approach of
three cateogries of signs has been retained. The ordinance
identif1es s1gns exempt from ARB approval, signs perm1tted
w1th ARB approval, and signs that are prohibited.
2. Exemption of Political and Non-Commercial signs.
The former version of the ordinance had a very restrictive
exemption for political signs placed 45 days before an
election. The rev1sed ord1nance provides a broad exemption
for political and non-commercial signs provided they are not
of certain proh1b1ted types (e.g., pole signs, roof signs).
The purpose of this exemption is to avoid first amendment
-3-
conflicts.
3. Exemption of Murals and Supergraphics That Are of
Non-Commercial Nature. The former version of the ord~nance
requlred that all murals and supergraphics be approved by the
ARB; approval could be granted only if the mural or super-
graphic had artistic merit and d~d not directly advertise a
bus~ness or activity. The revised vers~on of the ordinance
subjects murals and supergraph1cs to the s~gn code only if
related to the advertlsement of any product or service or the
identification of any business. This change was made to
avo1d first amendment problems inherent ~n a system of gov-
ernment review of the content of non-commercial communica-
tion.
4. Change of Llght-Bulb Strings from Proh~bited to
Permitted Category. Both Councilmembers Conn and Reed com-
mented that some types of lightbulb str~ngs should be
perm1tted. Therefore, lightbulb strings were changed from
the proh~bited category to the perm1tted category subject to
ARB approval.
5. Limited Exempt~on for Non-Commercial Flags. Under
the former version of the sign ordinance, ARB approval was
required for the erection of a flag pole and display of a
flag. The revised version of the ordinance permits the erec-
tion of up to two flag poles and the display of up to three
non-commercial flags, banners, or pennants without ARB
approval. The change was made in order to eliminate the
necessity of a discret10nary approval to engage in forms of
-4-
non-commerC1al communication.
6. Eliminat10n of Sign Identification Tags. The
former version of the ordinance required sign ident1fication
tags. Th1s requirement was elim1nated in response to admin-
istrative concerns. However, in response to the ARB, a
prov1sion was added to require that photographs be submitted
within 30 days of the completion of a sign or sign program
that received ARB approval. The purpose of this addition was
to ensure that a perm1t applicant submitted proof that the
s1gn or sign program was in conformance with the ARB
approval.
7. Change of Statues From Prohibited to Permitted
Category. Under the former version of the ordinance, all
statues ut111zed for advertising purposes were prohib1ted.
The revised version of the ordinance makes statues a per-
mitted sign subJect to ARB approval. The purpose of this
change was to provide greater flexibility in approv1ng a type
of sign that appears consistent with the objectives of the
ordinance.
8. B111boards. The former version of the ordinance
was all but silent on the treatment of billboards. The
rev1sed version permits change of copy of billboards without
ARB approval. In addition, billboards covered by a statewide
moratorium on removal are not subject to the removal provi-
S10ns of the sign ordinance during the period that Business
and Professions Code Section 5412.5 rema~ns in effect.
-5-
9. Requirement of Standard Application Form and Sign
Handbook. In response to comments of the Chamber of Commerce
Sign Committee, provisions have been added requiring the ARB
to prepare, and the Planning Commission to approve, standard
appl~cation forms and a handbook to assist applicants.
10. E11mination of Maximum Sign Area Per Site and
Change of Allowable Signage by Distr1ct. Under the former
version of the ordinance, standards were established to
govern the signage permitted in various districts. The
amount of signage was the function of the number of square
feet of bU11ding frontage. In addition, notw~thstanding the
total signage permitted by this formula, no site could have
more than 200 square feet of signage.
The revised version of the ord1nance has changed the
signage permitted by d1strict. The numbers were changed to
reflect those permitted in the 1979 version of the sign
ordinance. Based upon information available to City Attor-
ney, the standards contained in the 1979 version are more
defens1ble because they were the subject of careful study,
1ncluding an economic 1mpact analys1s. Any alteration of the
1979 numbers should be based upon a study that identifies the
necessity for and impacts of the changes.
The rev1sed version of the ordinance also eliminates
the maximum of 200 square feet of signage for each S1te
regardless of size. While the signage standards based upon
square footage attempts to tailor the amount of allowable
signage to the size of the business, the maximum signage
standard can operate to the disadvantage of businesses on
-6-
large sites. The potentlal disparity in treatment raises
constitutional problems.
11. High Rise Signs. Under the rubric of upper level
signs, the former version of the sign ordlnance prohibited
all upper level Slgns. The ARB suggested that certaln hlgh
rise signs be permitted. The revised version of the sign
ordinance permits high rise signs subject to ARB approval.
(It should be noted that the ordinance is less restrictive
than that suggested by the ARB.)
12. Increase 1n Time Lim1ts for Removal of Certa1n
Types of Non-Conformlng signs. Under the former version of
the ordinance, a number of signs were requlred to be removed
wlth1n 60 days. The revised verS10n changes the t1me perlod
to six months. The reason for the change was to give more
tlme for people to respond to the new ordinance and to
arrange for a new sign program consistent with the new
requlrements.
13. Removal of Other Non-Conforming Signs. The
removal of non-conforming freestanding, roof, upper level and
off-premise signs is governed by a five year amortization
period or by change in ownership of the sign, change in
ownership of the buslness with which the sign is associated,
or any change or alteration 1n the s1gn. Because 5 years
may not be a sufficient amortlzation period in all cases, a
application period is avallable to extend this deadllne upon
a finding that the time for removal does not provide for a
reasonable amortlzat1on perlod commensurate with the
-7-
~nvestment involved.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Attorney does not recommend that the sign
ordinance be introduced at this time. Instead, it is
recommended that the City council direct the preparation of
an appropriate techn1cal study analyzing the necessity for
and impacts of the var~ous provis~ons of the sign ordinance
and analyz~ng various policy choices ava1lable to the City
Council. Following preparat10n of this study, it is recom-
mended that the ordinance be returned to the City CouncIl
along with the comments of the Architectural Review Board and
Planning Commission.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
-8-