SR-401-030 (6)
PCD:SF:SHK:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\meritsignappeals.doc
Council Mtg: March 22, 2000 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to City Council Regarding Appeals of the Final Meritorious
Sign List and Recommendation to City Council Regarding Procedure and
Reduction of the Amount of Time Allowed Appellants to Speak from Ten
Minutes to Three Minutes.
Applicant/Appellant:
th
00APP010: Bay Area Muffler, 1922 14 Street
00APP017: Lares Restaurant, 2909 Pico Boulevard
00APP024: Jon Adams Hair Design, 2730 Neilson Way
00APP036: Santa Monica Radiator Sign, 1537 Lincoln Boulevard
th
00APP055: Bair’s Keystone Body Shop, 1762 14 Street
00APP056: The Galley, 2442 Main Street
00APP062: City Hall, 1685 Main Street
00APP003: Polly’s Pies, 501 Wilshire Boulevard
00APP004: Jack in the Box, 802 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP006: Lazy Daisy, 2300 Pico Boulevard
00APP007: Tune-up Masters, 1534 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP008: Brown’s Cleaners, 1223 Montana Avenue
00APP009: Aby Auto Masters, 1218 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP012: Bay Imports, 2445 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP013: Great Care Medical Group, 2221 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP014: Engler Bros. Motor Parts, 2630 Pico Boulevard
00APP015: Prestige Cleaners, 1106 Montana Avenue
00APP016: Carlton Hair/Locanda Portofino, 1108-10 Montana Avenue
00APP018: Lincoln Pipe and Plumbing Supplies, 2919 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP021: Firestone, 1817 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP022: Le Mans, 2107 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP023: Cock ‘n Bull Pub, 2947 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP026: McCabe and Camp Guitar Shop, 3101 Pico Boulevard
00APP028: Bob’s Market, 1650 Ocean Park Boulevard
00APP029: Carlson’s, 1342 Fifth Street
00APP030: Evett’s Model Shop, 1636 Ocean Park Boulevard
00APP031: Interactive Café, 215 Broadway
00APP032: Snyder-Diamond, 1399 Olympic Boulevard
00APP033: Marty’s Liquor, 1736 Ocean Park Boulevard
00APP034: Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream, 1227 Wilshire Boulevard
00APP035: Rich Sheet Metal Works, 1725 Colorado Avenue
00APP037: Boys and Girls Club of Santa Monica, 1238 Lincoln Boulevard
- 1 -
00APP038: R”N”R, 2819 Pico Boulevard
00APP039: Sea Shore Motel, 2637 Main Street
00APP040: Insta-Tune, 2307 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP041: Ed’s Airport Service, 3127 Ocean Park Boulevard
00APP042: Santa Monica Lock & Safe Co., 2208 Pico Boulevard
00APP043: Marquis West Restaurant, 3110 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP044: Metropolitan Cleaners, 2003 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP045: Hotel California (Ocean Avenue Properties), 1670 Ocean Avenue
00APP046: Ursula’s Costumes, 2516 Wilshire Boulevard
00APP047: Shakey’s Pizza & Ye Public House, 3033 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP048: Golden West Meats, 2012 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP049: Ski Haus, Inc., 3101 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP050: Bay Cities Appliances, 1302 Santa Monica Boulevard
00APP051: Arco, 1819 Cloverfield Boulevard
th
00APP052: Tip Top Tow Service, 1654 12 Street
00APP053: Just Tires, 1610 Wilshire Boulevard
00APP054: Gilbert’s Restaurant, 2526 Pico Boulevard
00APP057: Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 1200 Wilshire Boulevard
th
00APP058: Sunlight Mission Church, 1754 14 Street
th
00APP059: 14 Below, 1348 14 Street
00APP060: Bills Liquor Store, 2202 Lincoln Boulevard
00APP061: Danny’s Watch & Jewelry, 1005 Wilshire Boulevard
00APP064: Hornburg Jaguar Inc., 1601 Wilshire Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
This report transmits the appeal statements of the 55 appellants of the final list of
designated Meritorious Signs and recommends to City Council action regarding those
appeals. Non-conforming signs designated as meritorious may remain when they would
otherwise be required to be removed or modified by April 11, 2000 per Section 9.52.210
(d) of the Sign Code.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Sign Code, adopted in 1985, was to eliminate excessive and confusing
sign displays and to preserve and improve the appearance of the City for the benefit of
residents, workers and visitors. The regulations strike a balance between aesthetic values
- 2 -
important to the whole community with rights of sign owners.
Since that balance was struck in 1985, protecting and providing visual aesthetics has
become even more important; the visitor-serving industries have grown and the City has
become more intensely developed. Both these facts require the City to work even harder
to maintain our quality of life. It is, therefore, essential that the City continue to preserve
visual aesthetics and maintain the City’s physical environment. Removal of nonconforming
signs is vital to this goal of reducing visual clutter, enhancing sign and lives and promoting
aesthetic values.
To date, the Sign Code has successfully encouraged businesses to integrate signs that
are harmonious with the buildings and sites where they are located. Moreover, business
owners have begun removing nonconforming signs. Thus the Sign Ordinance has already
served to improve the City’s visual appearance and enhance Santa Monica as a place to
live, work, shop and do business. The citywide list of businesses with these nonconforming
signs is attached as Attachment G.
The Code defines such signs as
“(d) Free-standing, roof, upper level, projecting and off-premises signs, including
those signs which were previously animated or emitting signs, shall be removed or
modified to conform to the requirements of this Chapter within fifteen years from the
effective date of this Chapter [April 11, 2000].”
The multi-phase effort to implement this Code section, referred to as Signs 2000, began
- 3 -
more than two years ago. Attachment A provides a chronology that outlines the history of
the conformance effort.
On February 23, 2000, all business and property owners with nonconforming signs
identified in Section 9.52.210(d) of the Sign Code were sent a packet that included
notification of the appeal period. A notice of the meeting was published in the Our Times
section of the Los Angeles Times on March 16, 2000. A copy of the notice is included as
Attachment I. In addition, a copy of the staff report was delivered to the following
interested parties:
?
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
?
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Association
?
Mid-Cities Neighborhood Association
?
Ocean Park Community Organization
?
Friends of Sunset Park
?
Pico Neighborhood Association
?
Sunset Park Associated Neighbors
?
North of Montana Association
?
Borderline Group
?
Downtown Area Residents Association
?
Main Street Neighbors
?
Northeast Neighbors
?
South Beach Neighbors
APPEALS
A total of 55 businesses submitted appeals requesting inclusion on the final list of
designated Meritorious Signs. The appeal statements are included as Attachment B. Staff
evaluated each sign based on the criteria established in Ordinance 1956 (Attachment H).
The recommended findings developed by staff are included in this report as Attachment D.
Of the appealed signs, staff is recommending that City Council include eight (8) signs
representing seven (7) establishments on the final list of designated Meritorious Signs and
recommends that the remaining signs not be included on the list. Signs included on the list
- 4 -
would be considered meritorious and can, therefore, remain. All other signs would have to
be removed.
MERITORIOUS SIGN FINDINGS
In Section 9.52.250 (c)(1) of the Ordinance 1956 established the criteria used to evaluate
whether a sign is meritorious. A meritorious sign must first meet one of the following
findings:
Historically Significant.
A sign is historically significant if the sign was erected or created before 1970 and
is either representative of significant sign-making techniques or styles of a historic
era in Santa Monica’s history (Resort/Commuter Suburb Era, Early Motor Era, and
Post War Era) or represents entities or establishments that are an important part of
Santa Monica’s history; or
Artistically Significant.
A sign is artistically significant if the sign was erected or created between 1970
and 1985 and is of contemporary design, uses innovative materials with technical
excellence and represents entities or establishments that are an important part of
Santa Monica’s history.
If a sign meets one of these two findings, at least one of the following findings under
Section 9.52.250 (c)(2) must also be made:
(A) The sign is visually significant in one of the following regards
(i) The sign possesses a uniqueness and charm because it has visually
aged.
(ii) The sign remains a classic example of craftsmanship or style of the
period when it was constructed using materials in an exemplary way.
(iii) The sign is architecturally integrated into the structure.
(B) The sign is an inventive representation of the use, name or logo of the building
or business.
(C) The sign is located on buildings or properties with buildings that have been
designated as historic landmarks or have been listed in the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory.
If the character-defining features of a meritorious sign are altered, the sign will be deleted
- 5 -
from the meritorious list and will be required to be removed or where applicable, modified
to comply with the Sign Code.
HEARING PROCEDURE
Ordinance 1956 established City Council or its designee as the appeal hearing body, but
did not address hearing procedure. The appeal of the final list of designated Meritorious
Signs differs from other appeals heard by Council. In this case there are no applicants,
only appellants. In addition, all appeals are in essence requests to be included on a list
that allows the nonconforming signs to remain where otherwise such signs would be
required to be removed or modified by April 2000.
At the public hearing, staff will present a brief overview of the meritorious sign
requirements, followed by a visual presentation of the appealed signs. The public hearing
will then be opened and all appellants and members of the public will be provided three (3)
minutes for public testimony.
The required findings for meritorious signs, as outlined above, are very specific to whether
a sign has merit that should warrant its preservation. The findings do not allow for broader
consideration of the benefits of the sign code, impacts on business activities and other
important, though extraneous, issues. These issues were considered with the adoption of
the Sign Code in 1985. Further, staff’s experience in working with businesses is that most
of the requests for meritorious designation are very similar and, consequently, the analysis
for one situation often applies to many others. In fact, public testimony before the
Meritorious Sign Review Board tended to be very limited in duration given these
similarities and the narrow scope of the findings. Therefore, in the interest of giving
- 6 -
everyone a chance to speak, and using the Council’s time efficiently, staff recommends
that the City Council suspend its rules of procedure for this appeal hearing and allow each
appellant three (3) minutes to present their appeal testimony rather than ten (10) minutes.
Following the close of the public hearing, staff suggests that the Council select the signs
which warrant further discussion, remove them from the list, and vote on the remaining list
as to which findings cannot be made in the affirmative as a group.
The Meritorious Sign Review Board found this type of hearing procedure to be successful.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council include 00APP010, 00APP017, 00APP024, 00APP036,
00APP055, 00APP056, and 00APP062 to the final list of meritorious signs and exclude the
remainder of the appealed signs with the findings as listed in Exhibit D.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Acting Senior Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
- 7 -
Attachments: A: Chronology of Signs 2000 Conformance Effort
B: Appeal Statements with attachments
C: Meritorious Sign Appeals Presentation including photographs
D: Proposed Findings for Appealed Signs
E: List and Photographs of designated Meritorious Signs
F: Findings for designated Meritorious Signs
G: List of Nonconforming Signs Citywide
H: Ordinance 1956
I: Notice of Public Hearing
J: Correspondence
SHK
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\meritsignappeals.doc
July 5, 2007
- 8 -