HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1988, 4 - FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 1125 AMENDING THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FOR ""LANDMARK"" SIGNS."MEETING DATE:
���"�I�Ni(V�1111111P��►ylll city of San LUIS OBISpo 1 12/06/
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER:
0 &
FROM:Michael Multari, Community Development Dir. By: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Final passage of Ordinance No. 1125 amending the Sign Regulations to allow
exceptions for "landmark" signs.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Give final approval to Ordinance No. 1125 as recommended.
BACKGROUND
On November 15, 1988 the City Council held a public hearing to consider amendments to the
Sign Regulations (MC Section 15.40.080 B.). The council took public testimony,
considered alternatives (in the form of alternative motions), and introduced Ordinance
No. 1125.
With final City Council approval, the amendments to the Sign Regulations will go into
effect in 30 days.
TS:ts
Attached: Draft Ordinance
4 . t
ORDINANCE NO. 1125 (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
SIGN REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider amendments to the Municipal
Code regarding criteria for granting sign exceptions as indicated in the attached
administrative draft labeled Exhibit "A; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been evaluated (ER 88 -60) in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the Community Development Director has
granted a Negative Declaration in accordance with city and state environmental
guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION I. That the amendments to Chapter 15.40.080 B., Sign Regulations, attached
hereto marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference, be approved.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the negative declaration
granted by the Community Development Director is hereby confirmed.
SECTION 3. This ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and
noes, shall be published at least rive (5) days prior to its final passage in the
Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage.
o 1125"
Ordinance No. 1125 (1988 Series)
Page 2
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the 15th day of November 1988, on motion of Mayor Dunin
seconded by Councilwoman Pinard and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Dunin, Councilmembers Pinard and Settle
NOES: Councilmembers Rappa and Reiss
ABSENT: None
Mayor Ron Dunin
A
vl�� Vj
City erk Pam V<
APPROVED:
tive Officer
Community Development Director
�J -3
Ordinance No. 1125 (1988 Series)
EXHIBIT "A"
Sign Ordinance Amendment
Add the following underlined provisions to Section 15.40.080 B. of the sign regulations:
Application to the architectural review commission shall include reasons or
exceptional circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards'
such as:
1. Non - conforming use,
2. Visual obstruction,
3. Unusual building location on -site,
4. A non - conforming sign that acts a
When granting
an exemption
for a legally
non
- conforming sign. the
architectural
review
commission shall require
that
as many
non - conforming elements
of the sign be
eliminated
while allowing
its basic form
and
character to remain
0
Original Report f- - 11/15/88 Council meeting.
MEETING DATE.
+nn►���IVhlll!!ul�Kill city of San Luis OBispo 11-15-8
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU
et Multart,,6ommuntty 1evelopment Director 13y: Terry Sanville
SUBJECT: Amendments to the Sign Regulations (MC Section 15.40.080 B.).
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Introduce an ordinance approving amendments to the Sign
Regulations or take alternative action.
BACKGROUND
On September 20, 1988 the City Council reviewed a status report for the Community
Development Department's sign enforcement program. The report included a memorandum
listing alternative strategies for amending the sign regulations. After discussing
various possible changes to the "exemption" provisions of the regulations, the council
initiated the changes shown on Exhibit "A" attached. The change adds the following to
the list of possible reasons for granting an exception:
A non - conforming sign that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while not
disrupting views of prominent community landscape features.
On October 17, 1988, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed changes.
The attached memorandum summarizes the commissions' comments. In general, the ARC felt
that there will be a high level of subjectivity in determining what might constitute a
"neighborhood landmark" or a "focal point." Some commissioners suggested that landmark
signs might be defined as meeting specific age criteria (eg. 35 -50 years), be associated
with designated historical properties (cg. a listed "Historical Resource" property), or
have artistic merit.
The Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled to meet on November 3, 1988 to complete its
report to the council concerning "landmark signs." Staff will forward the CHC's report
under separate cover. Preliminary comments from committee members are that signs might
be considered landmarks only when they are integral to a designated historic property.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL
On October 26, 1988 the Community Development Director granted the project a negative
declaration. Excerpts from the initial environmental study form the evaluation section
of this report.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING AN ACTION
The ARC and (on appeal) the City Council would continue to use existing provisions within
the sign regulations to grant exceptions to city standards. Since the regulations only
provide "examples" of when exceptions might be granted, not expanding the list of
examples will not necessarily curtail the granting of exceptions.
The impact of the sign exemption process on community aesthetic resources (character of
commercial areas and views of surrounding landscape) will depend on how the process is
administered by the ARC and City Council.
Attachments Ordinance approving Amendments to the Sign Regulations (MC Section
15.40.080 B.).
ARC Comments
II city of San Luis OBISpo
mamimaA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2 -- Sign Regulations Amendment
EVALUATION
1. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources
Conclusions
The principal environmental resources affected by changes to the sign regulations is the
aesthetic character of the community: (1) views of important landscape features -- eg.
the Morros, surrounding foothills, Cuesta Ridge, or (2) architectural character of
commercial areas and neighborhoods.
The proposed change to the sign regulations, in itself, will not have a significant
impact on these resources. The range of impacts will depend on the ARC's and City
Council's continued administration of the sign exception process.
Adoption of the proposed amendments, however, may tend to emphasize the exception
process. There is already substantial interest in applying for sign exceptions to retain
existing large non - conforming signs. Expanding the exception provisions may further
encourage people to apply for exemptions. The public policy issue of the appropriateness
of these signs will be addressed on a case -by -case basis and the aesthetic impacts will
be determined at that level.
Discussion
Existing regulations enable the ARC (or on appeal the City Council) to grant exceptions
to the sign regulations. The regulations provide examples of circumstances where an
exception might be appropriate. However, the regulations do not limit the ARC or council
to using only these examples as a basis for making decisions. Other circumstances unique
to a particular situation may involve non - specified reasons. Conversely, the ARC is not
required to approve a sign even if it may meet one or more of the example criteria.
The proposed ordinance change identifies signs that are judged to be neighborhood
landmarks or focal points which do not disrupt views as eligible for sign exceptions.
Existing non - conforming landmark signs could be allowed if they did not disrupt views.
Signs that because of their height, size, lighting, or movement, disrupt views of the
surrounding hillsides or the Morros would not be consistent with the new exception
example.
The last sentence of the proposed change stipulates that the ARC "... require that as
many non - conforming elements of the sign be eliminated while allowing its basic character
to remain" This provision means that the degree of non - conformity of a signed will be
reduced as much as possible. For example, the ARC could approve an exception to an
existing non - conforming sign while requiring that it be:
lowered
relocated on the site or building
have the lighting changed
stop it from flashing or rotating.
This new provision is meant to improve the conformity of non - conforming signs.
1°'1111111 city of san tins osispo
wjjS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3 -- Sign Regulations Amendment
2. Alternatives
There are many alternatives to the proposed sign regulations amendment including:
Make no changes to the regulations
Extend amortization dates for large non - conforming signs
Exempt signs from abatement until use or property owner changes
Suspend enforcement
Change basic sign standards
Change standards for specific areas.
With the exception of the first two alternative (the no project alternative and extend
amortization dates), the other options, if implemented, could have greater impact on
community aesthetic resources than the proposed change.
The discussion in paragraph 1 indicates the "open ended" nature of the sign exception
program. This open ended feature is what makes the gauging of impacts difficult. Also,
under the current regulations, sign exceptions are granted as a "permanent" entitlement
to continue use of a sign that does not meet city design standards. There are methods
for addressing these two concerns that the City Council may consider as appropriate
additions to the proposed amendments. Additional changes could include the following:
A. Eliminate the exception process for existing non - conforming signs. This
provision would allow only new signs, that could be more easily integrated into the
design of a project, to be granted exceptions. The degree of non - conformity for a
new sign could be better controlled.
B. Establish a fixed listing of situations when exceptions may be granted. For
example, the regulations could be amended to read: " The ARC may grant an exception
to these standards only when..." and then list specific findings.
C. Establish a limit on the length of time that an exemption applies to an existing
non- conforming sign. For example, the regulations could be amended to state that an
— exemption granted an existing non - conforming sign shall be terminated when the use
of the property or the owner of the property changes.
This provision would limit the duration of the aesthetic impact associated with
retaining non - conforming signs that the ARC or council feel warrant sign exceptions.
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The City Council can:
1. Introduce an ordinance amending Section 15.40.080B. of the sign regulations, as
drafted or amended. (The council - initiated amendment.)
2. Continue consideration to a, future date and provide additional direction to
staff.
3. Deny the proposed amendment.
4. Initiate alternative amendments.
city of San Luis OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4 -- Sign Regulations Amendment
(If the council chooses to initiate alternative amendments, it should indicate the
objectives that these changes hope to achieve. This will allow staff to prepare
appropriate provisions for future consideration.)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance which amends Section 15.40.08013 of the sign regulations or take
alternative action.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Sign Regulation Amendment Memo of 10/19/88
N
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.40 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
SIGN REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider amendments to the Municipal
Code regarding criteria for granting sign exceptions as indicated in the attached
administrative draft labeled Exhibit "A;" and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been evaluated (ER 88 -60) in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the Community Development Director has
granted a Negative Declaration in accordance with city and state environmental
guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the amendments to Chapter 15.40.080 B., Sign Regulations, attached
hereto marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference, be approved.
SECTION 2. After City Council review and consideration, the negative declaration
granted by the Community Development Director is hereby confirmed.
SECTION 3. This ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and
noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage in the
Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage.
�- 9
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on
the day of , 1988, on motion of
seconded by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
and on
40 -/o
EXHIBIT "A"
Sign Ordinance Amendment
Add the following underlined provisions to Scction 15.40.080 H. of the sign regulations:
Application to the architectural review commission shall include reasons or
exceptional circumstances which warrant consideration for exceeding these standards
such as:
1. Non - conforming use.
2. Visual obstruction.
3. Unusual building location on -site,
4. A non - conforming Sien that acts as a neighborhood landmark or focal point while
not disruoting views of prominent community landscape features.
When ¢ranting an exemption for a legally non - conforming sign, the architectural
review commission shall require that as many non- conforming elements of the sign be
eliminated while allowing its basic form and character to remain.
Orw/
y�►► �N�i������le�l ►I►�IIIIIIIIIIiI�� °1 ° °� lu city o san Luis oBispo
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo. CA 93403.8100
October 19, 1988
TO: John Dunn and City Council
FROM Jeff Hook, Associate Planng1
SUBJECT: ARC Review of Proposed Amendment to Sign Regulations
At its October 17th meeting, five commissioners (Gates absent, one seat vacant) reviewed
the proposed amendment. All commissioners agreed that as written, the amendment would be
difficult to apply and "could lead to very subjective decisions about what is a landmark
or focal point" However, with specific criteria to define a "landmark sign ", such as
age, cultural or historical significance, or artistic merit, commissioners said they
could support such an amendment. Without more specific criteria, Commissioners felt that
the ARC and Council would be subject to extraordinary pressure to approve a wide variety
of signs that would otherwise not comply with regulations. They were also concerned that
new types of exceptions might be unfair to the majority of sign owners who have complied
with sign regulations.
Commr. Bradford suggested that uniqueness to this area be used as one criteria -- signs
for national or regional chains are generic and should not be considered landmarks. The
other commissioners supported this approach.
Commr. Cooper felt that age was an important criteria, and that signs should be at least
35 years old to be a landmark. Commr. Bradford cited the roof - mounted neon sign "Chop
Suey" for a chinese restaurant, approved earlier in the meeting, as a good example of a
landmark sign, since it represented SLO's Chinatown and dated back to the 30's.
Commr. Jones felt a Comprehensive review of the sign ordinance may be appropriate to
address some possible inequities, for example in the Calle Joaquin area. He asked if it
might be appropriate for the CHC to help develop criteria for what constitutes 'landmark
status."
No vote was taken on the item. By consensus, commissioners referred their comments to
the Council.
cc: ARC Commissioners
M Multari
T. Sanville
jh2 /signamend
December 5, 1988
* Denotes action by Lead Person
�Re/sp_ond by:
ncil
VCAO
i7 city Atty.
t-VClerk -orig.
V,,iffT LIAR
Mayor Ron Dunin
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
�F',INU AGEi 'A
L12 6 88
:.• . _ L- ITEM #
Dear Mayor Dunin:
The Obispo Beautiful Association would like to go on record as opposing the proposed
ordinance to amend the Sign Regulations.
We believe the 'neighborhood landmark' and "focal point" designations would be vague
and further compound the degree of subjectivity in the exception process. We support
making no changes to the existing Sign Regulations.
Thank you for the consideration given this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Walter M. Tryon, Chairman
Obispo Beautiful Association
P. O. Box 137
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
RECEIVED
«rvcLm
SMUXS CA
% SSp-M •