Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-02 - AGENDA REPORTS - SIGNAGE (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Boyer and City Councilmembers FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: January 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Signage On -Site Signage. The City adopted a sign ordinance, which became effective on December 14, 1990, in order to decrease sign clutter. Signs which do not conform to the ordinance are termed "nonconforming." Some examples of nonconforming signs are those that no longer meet the height, area, or locational requirements. The ordinance established an amortization period of nine years so that everyone with nonconforming signs would have a reasonable amount of time to make necessary changes. In December of 1999, all signs in the City will be required to comply with the ordinance. The ordinance became a part of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC), effective in December of 1992. It is estimated that 75% of the signs in the City are nonconforming. City staff has now been implementing the sign ordinance for five years, and has made considerable progress in reducing sign clutter and improving the overall quality of signage within the City. Shopping center signage, in particular, has improved as a result of ordinance implementation because City staff has encouraged a number of shopping centers to utilize a sign program which conforms to the City's ordinance. This opportunity arises each time an owner applies to change the letters of an existing sign. The applicant receives an approval which guarantees the sort of signage he is entitled to, and he is spared from researching the rules each time a tenant changes. Sign programs have been used to require the removal of several highly visible freestanding multi -tenant signs (e.g. the 80 -foot pylon sign at Canyon Country Plaza). Sign plans have been obtained for Sierra Canyon Plaza, Creekside Place and Canyon Country Plaza. In conformance with Council direction, City code enforcement officers maintain a "reactive" approach to violations of the sign ordinance, as they do to other zoning code violations. Staff is aware of some signage (particularly wall -painted signage which is not subject to a building permit) that has been erected although it is prohibited by the Ordinance. A more proactive approach to enforcement of the sign ordinance would require additional code enforcement staff. An extensive public participation program would be developed to notify and educate businesses and other sign users prior to beginning a major enforcement program. Working through the Chamber of Commerce, community sign workshops could be held. Cable access television could be utilized as well. enda Item. 3 Mayor Boyer and City Councilmembers January 2, 1996 page 2 Outdoor Advertising Signs. On December 16, 1987, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 87- 9, imposing a moratorium on the construction of "outdoor advertising signs" (also referred to as "billboards" or "off-site advertising signs") in the City for aesthetic and traffic safety reasons. On July 11, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 89-17 establishing standards for outdoor advertising signs. This Ordinance established a number of significant standards for the erection of new billboards, including the following: 1) they became subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, 2) their placement was limited to those areas with a Billboard (BB) Overlay Zone, and were prohibited from placement within 1,000, feet of a residential zone or another outdoor advertising sign, 3) their height was limited to 35 feet, and 4) their total area was limited to 300 square feet. These same standards were included in the UDC, which became effective on December 24, 1992. This Ordinance also established an amortization schedule for existing billboards to allow for their removal over a period from two to seven years, based upon their fair market value. This amortization schedule has not been enforceable, as the fair market value was assumed to be the actual cost of the billboard structure and did not include the value of future advertising, State law dictates a more generous formula for calculating the fair market value of these signs. Any consideration of a billboard removal program will require careful planning and budgeting over a period of many years. The amortization provisions alone, do not allow the City to compel billboard owners to remove their billboards at the end of the amortization period, The City must pay for this removal, since it is a program to phase out and compensate billboard owners. (See below for removal cost estimates.) One form of outdoor advertising which has been permitted is bus shelter signage. Two billboard companies, Eller Media and 3M Media, have approached the City regarding the potential replacement of surface street billboards in exchange for new freeway -oriented billboards. Specifically, 3M has proposed a 2:1 street/freeway exchange, based on square footage of the sign face. It has not been presently determined where billboards would be removed. The City could develop its priority list and use that as a basis for beginning discussions with the billboard companies. In developing a priority list, such a list could be developed in several different ways: (1) various locations could be chosen. (2) billboards not presently located in the billboard overlay zone could be targeted. Under the present code restrictions, it will be very difficult to locate billboards within close proximity to the freeways. Two locational requirements severely limit potential freeway -visible sites: (1) Commercial and Industrial zones are the only zones in which a billboard overlay zone may be located. There are very few locations where these zones exist next to both freeways, and (2) No billboards may be located within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. Both freeways, particularly the Antelope Valley Freeway, have mostly, residentially zoned land along their corridors. The General Plan states that we shall "work with appropriate state, federal, and county agencies to prohibit billboards along freeway frontages and designated scenic highways" Mayor Boyer and City Councilmembers January 2, 1996 page 3 (Community Design Element, Policy 8.2) and that we shall "prohibit new billboards in the City and encourage the elimination of existing billboards Citywide" (Community Design Element, Policy 8.4). As a result, the City would need to process a General Plan amendment and a Unified Development Code amendment in order to accommodate these companies' proposals. A zone change would also be required to add the Billboard (BB) Overlay Zone to the new sign locations. On at least two occasions, local citizens have expressed concerns to the City Council regarding offensive content of billboard advertisements. Billboard display content is self - regulated by the billboard companies when space is leased for an advertisement. As billboard display advertising inherently contains first amendment considerations, attempts at local government regulation of content are typically expensive and time consuming to litigate with little chance of success. According to a representative of the California Outdoor Advertising Association, billboard companies do, on occasion, require changes in offensive advertisements prior to being displayed. As individual definitions of offensive material is wide ranging, sometimes billboard advertisements do cause extraordinary concern and comment from local residents. Billboard companies attempt to be sensitive to community concerns, as the purpose of the billboard display is to seek a favorable consumer response for both the advertiser and the billboard company. For example, as occurred in Santa Clarita, upon being contacted by local residents who were offended by an advertisement, the billboard owner immediately removed the display. Therefore, it would appear that a successful approach may be to work through the individual billboard companies, the California Outdoor Advertising Association and individual advertisers to effect changes in any offensive billboard content. PROGRESS TO DATE Staff will present some slides to depict "before" and "after" conditions in several locations. This will demonstrate the effectiveness the City's ordinance can have. It appears that many signs will remain non -conforming as the deadline of December of 1999 approaches. The most obvious area of non -conformity is the location of pole signs which will no longer be permitted. Unless the owners of these signs wish to make changes to other signage on their property, they will not likely create a sign program, and therefore, these signs may remain until the sunset date. The billboards create income for the property owners and the advertising companies. There is little incentive for either of these parties to remove these signs. However, staff has encouraged the removal and has been successful in a few cases. In order to force the elimination of billboards, compensation must be given. Market values would be determined. The MTA has estimated $12,000 for the smaller signs and $50,000 for the larger signs. When designing the trail along Soledad, an estimate of $800,000 was made to eliminate 10 large signs and 18 small signs along a 1.8 mile stretch on Soledad. Mayor Boyer and City Councilmembers January 2, 1996 page 4 Many of the billboards are owned by three companies. Staff has plotted the billboards on a map. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES The Council may wish to consider entertaining the idea of billboard removal, either by purchase or by entering into a trade for one or two freeway locations. One large freeway sign would allow for a removal of as many as 12 of the smaller signs, based on a 2:1 ratio of sign face area. The area of Downtown Newhall would be an appropriate area to target for billboard removal as part of the City's Old Town Newhall Revitalization Strategy. In the area of on-site signage, the City may wish to work with the Chamber of Commerce to begin a notification process for owners of non -conforming signs. This could be done in stages, with the first stage being informational, then progressing to alert and encourage business owners to come to City Hall to discuss a sign program for their properties. Auto Mall Freeway Directional Sieh. Over the past two years, the City and the automobile dealerships have discussed the feasibility of locating an auto mall directional sign along the I-5 freeway. To date, a specific design and precise location have been discussed. The location in mind is east of the freeway, just north of the Valencia Boulevard exit. The staff is prepared to bring this information to the City Council for consideration once the logistics are worked out. This sign could also include directions to the Valencia Town Center and the proposed hotel and conference center. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council review and discuss this matter and bring it back to a future City Council Meeting. GAC:KMK:lep s: \cd\ council\arsignss.kmk